Karnataka High Court
Ravindra Gangaram @ Gangadhar Patil vs Gopal S/O. Maryeppa Modekar on 9 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3698
MFA No. 102265 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102265 OF 2015 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SHRI RAVINDRA GANGARAM @ GANGADHAR PATIL,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: MECHANIC, [NOW NIL],
R/O. HANDIGANUR, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI GOPAL S/O MARYEPPA MODEKAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: SERVICEMAN,
R/O. HANDIGANUR, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SS KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1-SERVED)
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
ACT, PRAYING TO, JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.04.2015 IN MVC
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad
Bench
Date: 2026.03.10
09:29:55 +0000
NO.457/2012 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND
MEMBER MACT-II BELAGAVI MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE AND
COMPENSATION MAY KINDLY BE AWARDED AS PRAYED FOR WITH
18% INTEREST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3698
MFA No. 102265 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 25.04.2015 passed by I Additional District Judge and Member, MACT-II, Belagavi (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC no.457/2012, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for appellant submitted, appeal was by claimant challenging dismissal of his claim petition. It was submitted at 11.00 a.m. on 08.12.2008, when claimant was walking by side of Belagavi - Handiganur road, rider of motorcycle no.KA-22/W-5193 rode it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against claimant and caused accident. Claimant sustained grievous injuries and despite treatment at KLE Hospital, Belagavi did not recover fully and sustained loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against owner and insurer of motorcycle.
3. Despite of service of notice, owner did not appear. He was placed exparte. Insurer opposed claim petition on all counts. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself and Dr.A.B.Patil as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P14. An official of insurer was -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3698 MFA No. 102265 of 2015 HC-KAR examined as RW-1 and Exs.R1 to R4 got marked. On consideration, Tribunal held claimant failed to establish occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent driving of rider of insured motorcycle and dismissed claim petition, leading to this appeal.
4. It was submitted merely on ground of delay in filing complaint, dismissal of claim petition was not justified. It was contended minor discrepancies in Hospital records which cannot be attributable to claimant were highlighted to dismiss bonafide claim after quantifying compensation. On said ground, sought for interference.
5. On other hand, Sri S. S. Koliwad learned counsel for insurer supported award.
6. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment, award and record.
7. As noted above, claimant - appellant herein is challenging dismissal of claim petition. Though, contentions are urged about reasons assigned being untenable, perusal of impugned judgment reveals, after framing appropriate points for -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3698 MFA No. 102265 of 2015 HC-KAR consideration, Tribunal meticulously examined record and found claim petition wanting on several counts. It firstly observed that claimant was relying upon prosecution records to establish rash and negligent driving, which indeed revealed owner had pleaded guilty to allegation of causing accident by rash and negligent riding of motorcycle, but also noted that same was in proceedings initiated after three years of accident on a private complaint and immediately on service of notice, owner had pleaded guilty. It also noted, in history of injuries column in Exs.P2 and P3 Wound Certificates and Summary Sheet of hospital, claimant had stated that injuries were sustained due to hit by two wheeler on 08.12.2008. But, in Ex.P4 - Summary Sheet dated 21.07.2009, it was mentioned as fall from motorcycle one week ago. Tribunal considered these discrepancies as grave and material, disbelieved claimant and dismissed petition.
8. It is further seen in Ex.P3 Wound Certificate dated 21.08.2009, date of accident mentioned is 08.12.2008. Even in Ex.P4 Summary Sheet, date of admission mentioned is 21.07.2009 and date of discharge is 25.07.2009. Further even -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3698 MFA No. 102265 of 2015 HC-KAR date of Ex.P5 - hospital receipt is 09.12.2008 gravely contradicting claimant's version. Thus there appears grave and irreconcilable contradiction with regard to date of accident, without any explanation from claimant.
9. In view of above, finding of Tribunal about failure of claimant to establish nexus between injuries and accident in question would be based on record. Therefore, I do not see any good or sufficient grounds to interfere with impugned award. Hence, following:
ORDER Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE ckk CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 25