[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Divisional Manager vs Khaleelulla Sharief on 8 December, 2025

                             -1-
                                     MFA No. 6491 of 2017



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025

                          BEFORE
        THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
     MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6491 OF 2017 (MV-I)



BETWEEN:



DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
S.S.COMPLEX B.H.ROAD,
SHIVAMOGGA,
NOW REPRESENTED
BY REGIONAL OFFICE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
C K PARI MALA
REGIONAL OFFICE NO.144,
SHUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD
BANGALORE.
                                              ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.    KHALEELULLA SHARIEF
      S/O RAHAMATHULLA SHARIEFF
      OLD CAR DEALER
      R/O 3RD STAGE BYPASS ROAD
      SHIVAMOGGA

2.    UMESH
      S/O SUNDER NAIKA
      MANDENAKOPPA VILLAGE
      MATHOOR POST
      SHIVAMOGGA TALUK
                            -2-
                                       MFA No. 6491 of 2017



3.   KIRAN NAIKA
     S/O SHIVAPPA NAIKA
     AGRICULTURIST
     R/O MANDEENAKOPPA VILLAGE,
     MATHOOR POST
     SHIVAMOGGA TALUK


                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(R2 & R3 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
V/O DATED 09.01.2025 - NOTICE TO R1 IS H/S)

      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO.217/2015 DATED 03.04.2017
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL SHIVAMOGGA AND SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN MVC NO.217/2015 DATED
03.04.2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE    AND      MOTOR   ACCIDENT      CLAIMS    TRIBUNAL
SHIVAMOGGA AS AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND ETC.

      THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT     ON    14.11.2025    AND    COMING    ON   FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO


                     CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been

filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment

dated 03.04.2017 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge

and MACT-VI, at Shivamogga in MVC No.217/2015.

2. Parties are referred as per their rankings before the

Tribunal for convenience of reference.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 06.12.2024 at about 7.30 p.m.,

when the petitioner/claimant was crossing B.H.Road, one

motor-cycle bearing No.KA-14-EG-7700 driven by

Respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed

against the petitioner. The petitioner was admitted to

hospital and took treatment as in-patient for more than 10

days and undergone major operation to head and

sustained other injuries. After institution of petition,

notices were served on Respondents No.1 to 3, they

appeared through counsel and filed separate written

statements. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Claims Tribunal framed the following issues:

ISSUES

1. Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries in an accident that occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle bearing Regn. No.KA-14-EG-7700 by the 1st respondent, on 06.12.2014 at about 7.30 p.m., at Opp. Meenakshi Bhavan, B.H.Road, Shivamogga city?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, at what quantum and from whom?

3. What order or Award?

ADDL. ISSUE

1. Whether the respondent No.3 proves that the person injured in the accident and the petitioner are not one and the same?

4. In support of his case, the petitioner has examined

himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. Officer

of Respondent No.3 - Insurance Company has been

examined as RW1 on behalf of respondents and Ex.R1 -

Insurance Policy has been marked. The brother of the

petitioner who lodged a complaint, has not been

examined. The Tribunal has partly allowed the petition and

awarded compensation of Rs.1,18,000/- with interest at

the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of petition till its

deposit.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the

appellant/Insurance Company and perused the material on

record. None appear for the respondents 2 and 3 in spite

of service of notice. Notice to Respondent No.1 is held

sufficient.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance

Company submitted that an amendment was carried out in

the petition regarding the name of the petitioner and

raised a serious objection regarding the identity of the

petitioner. He has further contended that brother of the

claimant who lodged the complaint has not been examined

by the claimant and the burden of proof is on the part of

the petitioner to prove that he is the person who met with

the accident and sustained injuries.

7. As regards Addl. Issue No.1 whether the respondent

No.3 proves that the person injured in the accident and

the petitioner are one and the same, the Tribunal has

observed that after the accident, complaint was lodged by

brother of petitioner Athaulla Sharief on behalf of

petitioner by name Mohammad Khaleel, S/o.Vazeer as the

petitioner was unconscious and petition is also filed in the

name of Mohammad Khaleel. But brother of the petitioner

has not been examined. Later, counsel was permitted by

the Tribunal to amend the name of the petitioner as

Khaleelulla Shariff, S/o.Rahamathulla Shariff. Name of the

petitioner does not tally and even father's name of the

petitioner also does not tally. Thus, the amendment has

created a doubt about the identity of the person who met

with the accident. The petitioner has deposed in his cross-

examination by the Insurance Company that he does not

know whether the baby will be named immediately after

birth and the name of the person will be corrected while

entering in the school register as per Muslim rituals.

Further, he has deposed that he did not investigate

whether both the names mentioned are one and the same.

8. On going through the impugned Award, material on

record and on hearing the learned counsel for the

appellant - Insurance Company, this Court is of the

opinion that there is a serious dispute regarding the name

of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has not

investigated whether names Mohammad Khaleel,

S/o.Vazeer and Khaleelulla Shariff, S/o.Rahamathulla

Shariff, are the names of present petitioner. Father's

name also does not tally. Thus, the burden of proof is on

the part of the petitioner to prove that both Mohammad

Khaleel and Khaleelulla Shariff are different names of the

petitioner.

9. Further, this Court is of the opinion that the matter

requires reconsideration as there is a serious dispute

regarding the name of the petitioner. The Tribunal has

lost sight of the evidence adduced and material on record

and has awarded compensation in a cavalier manner

without considering the fact that the name of the

petitioner and father's name do not tally. It is observed

that the Tribunal has not properly analyzed the oral and

documentary evidence on record. In view of the above

circumstances, the matter has to be remitted back to the

Tribunal for fresh consideration, in accordance with law, as

there is perversity in the impugned Award dated

03.04.2017 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and

MACT-VI, at Shivamogga in MVC No.217/2015.

10. In the result, the following order is passed:

ORDER

a) The appeal is allowed.

b) The Judgment and Award dated 03.04.2017 passed

by Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT-VI, at

Shivamogga in MVC No.217/2015 is set aside.

c) The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh

consideration by giving opportunity to both the

parties and dispose the same, in accordance with

law.