Karnataka High Court
Raju @ Raja @ Rajappa S vs Puttaswamy on 1 April, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:13564
MFA No. 7665 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7665 OF 2015 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
RAJU @ RAJA @ RAJAPPA S
S/O SHEKHARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O KUMBRI NARAYANAPUR,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
NOW R/AT C/O NAGARJA
S/O RUDRAPPA,
R/O HALLIKERARA ROAD,
CHANNAGIRI TOWN-577 213
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHASHIDHARA R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PUTTASWAMY
S/O MUDDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
Digitally signed by OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
MEGHA MOHAN OWNER OF DRIVER OF TILLER
Location: HIGH COURT BEARING NO.KA-14/7290,
OF KARNATAKA
R/O KUMBRI NARAYANAPUR
BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577 301
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD .,
1ST FLOOR, MALLIKARJUNA COMPLEX,
PRAVASI MANDIR ROAD,
DAVANAGERE-577 002
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH M., ADVOCATE FOR R1
SMT.GEETHA RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:13564
MFA No. 7665 of 2015
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:29.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.46/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T, CHANNAGIRI, DISMISSING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the dismissal order in M.V.C.No.46/2012
dated 29.06.2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT,
Channagiri, the appellant/claimant is before this Court.
2. It is the case of the claimant that on 18.09.2011, he
was proceeding towards Kudligere Village in Hero Honda
motorcycle and at about 7.30 p.m., when he came near the
poultry farm of Narasimha Naidu, a Tiller was coming from the
opposite direction without having any headlight. The driver of
the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner
with high speed without observing the traffic rules and
regulations and hit the same to the motorcycle and caused the
accident.
3. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition
observing that in this case it can be clearly held that since the
NC: 2025:KHC:13564
power tiller is a small vehicle which cannot move fast, the case
of the claimant that the power tiller came in high speed and
dashed against his motor cycle cannot be acceptable. If at all
the claimant was not going in a high speed, there could not
have been such a severe damage to both the vehicles as
mentioned in the IMV report which is marked as Ex.P.4 and
there could not have been any such injury to the claimant.
Hence, it can be clearly held that the accident was due to the
rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle in which the
claimant was going and it also shows that the power tiller is not
involved in the accident and accordingly, the Tribunal had
negatived the contention of the claimant that there is rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the tiller. The Tribunal had
also observed that the Police have filed the charge sheet
against the 1st respondent who caused the accident in a rash
and negligent manner with high speed. On perusal of the entire
records and nature of the vehicle involved in the accident, it
can be held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent
driving of the motorcycle and by the claimant himself and not
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tiller. The
Tribunal gave a finding that the power tiller is a small vehicle
NC: 2025:KHC:13564
and it cannot be driven on the road itself. It should be run by
holding it by a person who can walk with it and no person can
sit on it. Such being the nature of the power tiller, the 1st
respondent cannot drive the same in a rash and negligent
manner and accordingly, the Tribunal had dismissed the claim
petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant
submits that the Tribunal more on assumptions and
presumptions had dismissed the petition. He submits that it is
the case of the claimant that the power tiller was moving
without headlight and the accident had occurred at 7:30 p.m.
and because of that, the accident had taken place. It is
submitted that the Police have filed the charge sheet against
the driver of the power tiller. In that case, the claimant had
discharged his burden and the burden lies on the Insurance
Company to prove that the accident had taken place on behalf
of the negligence of the claimant but not of the driver of the
power tiller. It is submitted that the Tribunal by assuming and
presuming the things had dismissed the petition. He submits
that the involvement of the vehicle is not in dispute, it is about
the negligence. It is submitted that not switching on the
NC: 2025:KHC:13564
headlights at 7:30 p.m. amounts to negligence and on that
basis, the insurer of the power tiller is liable to pay the
compensation.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/
Insurance Company submits that Ex.R1 is the true copy of
sketch which shows that the power tiller is at an extreme left
side of the road and the claimant who is coming from the
opposite side has gone to the extreme left side and hit the
vehicle. That itself shows that there is negligence on the part of
the claimant. Further, in his cross-examination, he had deposed
that he could see the tiller from 15 feet away and it is stated
that the tiller cannot move more than 6 kms speed. It is
submitted that all these things clearly shows that the claimant
is at fault. It is submitted that even in the criminal case also,
the accused is acquitted and the Tribunal has given a finding
that the accident had taken place because of the negligence on
the part of the claimant.
6. In response to the same, learned counsel appearing for
the claimant submits that there is no judgment placed on
record to make such a submission and he denied the same.
NC: 2025:KHC:13564
7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the entire material on record. The vehicle that is
involved in this case is a power tiller. It is an admitted fact that
it cannot move on its own. It has to be held by a person and
the Tribunal gave a finding that it should be run by holding it by
person who can walk with it and no person can sit on it. Even
as per the evidence of the claimant, he could see the power
tiller 15 feet away from him, he says that because the
headlight was not switched on, the accident had taken place.
The said evidence in the cross-examination and the case of the
claimant are not going together and in fact, they are contrary
to the case of the claimant. Considering all these facts, the
Tribunal had rightly held that there is no negligence on the part
of the driver of the tiller and it is on the part of the claimant.
The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
claimant that the finding of the Tribunal is more on
assumptions and presumptions has no legs to stand. Hence,
this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered
order passed by the Tribunal.
8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is
dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:13564
i. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Records to the Tribunal, along with certified
copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith
without any delay.
ii. No costs.
iii. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
MEG
