- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010399842013 NC: 2026:KHC:46732 MFA No. 8881 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8881 OF 2013 (MV-I) BETWEEN: KUM S PREMA AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, D/O SRINIVASAPPA MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN GRANDFATHER CHINNAPPA, S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O MANCHIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHESHADRI N S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. Y V RATHNAM S/O KRISHNAIAH SHETTY, MAJOR BY AGE, R/O BAIRAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE-612 701, 10-214, P.H. ROAD, OPP. DISTRICT COURT CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH-517 001. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010399842013 NC: 2026:KHC:46732 MFA No. 8881 of 2013 (BY SRI. S V HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE FOR R2, V/O DTD: 03.02.2020 R1 –APPEAL AGAINST DISMISSED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 17.06.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.90/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 28.08.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 17.06.2013 passed by the I Additional District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolar in MVC No.90 of 2011. 2. Injured claimant met with an accident on 07.08.2010. She is a minor, aged 11 years. Her grandfather as a natural guardian filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, dismissed the application. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010399842013 NC: 2026:KHC:46732 MFA No. 8881 of 2013 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant-petitioner preferred this appeal and mainly contended that, on 07.08.2010. while petitioner was returning from school in Mulbagal town in a bus bearing registration No.AP-03/U-1767 and when she was alighting from the bus, the driver had driven it in a rash and negligent manner. She fell down on the road and sustained multiple injuries. But, the bus went away without stopping there. She was admitted in the hospital. She was studying 6th class. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P2, i.e. complaint and FIR were filed against the vehicle bearing registration No.AP- 03/U-4767 and not against the bus No.AP-03/U-1767. It is further contended that the owner of the offending vehicle was set ex-parte before the Tribunal. Insurance company filed objections. The petitioner produced Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P102 and examined three witnesses. PW1 is the grandfather and he gave complaint, PW2 is an eye witness to the occurrence and PW3 is the doctor. It is contended that though there was some discrepancy regarding vehicle number, but it is not a ground to dismiss the application. As per Exhibit P4, certified copy of the - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010399842013 NC: 2026:KHC:46732 MFA No. 8881 of 2013 order in CC No.522 of 2010, driver of the offending vehicle pleaded guilty for his rash and negligent driving and he paid fine amount. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of PW2 and the documents signed by him and dismissed the application erroneously. Therefore, requested this Court to set aside the order. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. 5. The main question before this Court is, whether the petitioner met with an accident by a bus bearing registration No.AP-03/U-1767 on 07.08.2010 or by a bus bearing registration No.AP-03/U-4767. 6. In the earlier police records, i.e. complaint, affidavit and Exhibit P6 report, the number of the vehicle is shown as No.AP-03/U-4767. But in the claim petition, the registration number is shown as AP-03/U-1767. As such, PW1 and PW2 stated the number as AP-03/U-1767. PW1 in his cross examination admitted that he does not remember the registration number of the vehicle. PW2 has not stated any - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010399842013 NC: 2026:KHC:46732 MFA No. 8881 of 2013 vehicle number in his evidence i.e., in his chief or cross examination. He simply stated that he shifted the injured girl immediately to the hospital. Learned counsel for the appellant- claimant stated that he mentioned the vehicle number wrongly, but he has not taken any steps to amend the number of the vehicle before the Tribunal and even when an objection was taken by the insurance company in the written statement at the earliest point of time. 7. RW1 also stated that the vehicle involved in the accident is No.AP-03/U-4767, i.e. Ashok Leyland bus bearing registration No.AP-03/U-4767 and the said SVT bus was driven by D. Nagaraj, with a driving license bearing No.2319950001798 and it was issued on 22.06.1995. Exhibit R1 is the driving licence. It is stated that the driver was authorized to drive light motor vehicle non-transport and light motor vehicle transport and heavy transport vehicle only. As such, he had no valid driving licence to drive heavy passenger vehicle. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010399842013 NC: 2026:KHC:46732 MFA No. 8881 of 2013 8. No doubt, the driver pleaded guilty in CC No.522 of 2010 and paid the fine amount, but, the question before this Court is regarding involvement of the bus bearing No.AP-03/U- 1767 and it is a private SVT bus. The claim petition is filed against the driver of the above bus number. But the entire police record including the complaint, charge sheet and the IMV report is against the bus bearing registration No.AP-03/U-4767. Notice was sent to the owner of the bus bearing No.AP-03/U- 1767 and he remained ex parte. Even the policy is issued for the vehicle bearing No.AP-03/U-4767 as stated by respondent No.2. It is a clear case of implication of the vehicle bearing registration No.AP-03/U-1767. As per the citation in case of Veerappa and Another Vs. Siddappa and Another reported in (2009) 1 KACJ 500, it is the bounding duty of the tribunals or the courts to rule out the implication of the vehicle, though the claim petitions are filed under beneficial legislation. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly considered all the aspects in detail and dismissed the application. This Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010399842013 NC: 2026:KHC:46732 MFA No. 8881 of 2013 9. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the Tribunal. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62