Karnataka High Court
Basavaraja vs Mahalingappa on 7 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:30695
MFA No. 4431 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4431/2015 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
BASAVARAJA,
S/O DODDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O VITTALA PURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
ARASIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K R LINGARAJU., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MAHALINGAPPA,
S/O GANGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O NO.40/A, 4TH CROSS,
SRIRAMANAGAR, ITTAMADU,
Digitally
3RD STAGE,
signed by
BANGALORE-560 085.
MADHURI S
Location: 2. MANAGER,
High Court SRI RAMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
of Karnataka E-8, EPIP/RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SEETAPURA, JYPUR,
RAJASTHAN-302 022.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
R1 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:30695
MFA No. 4431 of 2015
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:12.02.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.808/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
JMFC, MACT, ARSIKERE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section
173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the
judgment and award dated 12.02.2015 passed in MVC
Nos.808/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC,
MACT, Arsikere.
2. Learned counsel for appellant is present. Learned
counsel for respondents remained absent.
3. Learned counsel for appellant contended that the
accident occurred on 07.09.2012. The trial court observed
as per the extract of MLC register that the accident
occurred on 06.09.2012. It is submitted that RW1 who
gave first aid treatment stated that he examined the
NC: 2025:KHC:30695
HC-KAR
petitioner on 06.09.2012 but in other documents Ex.P1 to
P5 date of accident is shown as 07.09.2012. Hence, as
there was discrepancy in the date of accident and thus the
trial court had dismissed the application. Against the said
order, this appeal is preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant further
contended that the tribunal has not considered the other
documents and relied upon MLC register only and the
same is not proper. It is further contended that initially
the appellant was admitted to the hospital on 07.09.2012
and on the same day he was discharged and was admitted
in the private hospital and now he intended to examine
the doctor who treated him in the private hospital to
substantiate his version and thus requested this court to
remand the matter.
5. It is further stated that the appellant was
unconscious and was unable to move anywhere. His father
was also busy along with the petitioner. The treatment
NC: 2025:KHC:30695
HC-KAR
was done in Arasikere Hassan and also in Bangalore, as
such, he could not file complaint on the date of accident.
6. The tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground
that there was discrepancy in the date of accident, but the
appellant herein intended to establish the date of accident
as 07.09.2012 by examining the doctor who treated him in
a private hospital on the same day. Therefore, this court
finds that it is just and reasonable to remand the matter
with a permission to adduce medical evidence on his
behalf. Tribunal is directed to record the medical evidence
and also to dispose of the matter afresh by duly
considering the evidence and arguments of both sides on
record, afresh, within 3 months from the date of this
order.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and remanded
back to the tribunal.
Registry is directed to send the records in 10 days.
NC: 2025:KHC:30695
HC-KAR
The parties are directed to appear before the tribunal
on 01.09.2025.
Sd/-
(P SREE SUDHA)
JUDGE
AKV
