Karnataka High Court
Mohammad Yasin vs Babulal J Karajgi And Anr on 3 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:772
MFA No. 200793 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 200813 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200793 OF 2021 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200813 OF 2021 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO.200793/2021:
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMAD ANIS S/O BABULAL KARAJAGI,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O HAMAL COLONY, VIJAYAPURA-586 103.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
LUCYGRACE
LUCYGRACE Date: 1. BABULAL J. KARAJGI,
2025.02.05
11:56:05 -
0800 AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE
REG. NO.KA-28/Y-6643,
R/O HAMAL COLONY, VIJAYAPURA-586 103.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S.S. ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2;
R1-SERVED, BUT UN-REPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:772
MFA No. 200793 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 200813 of 2021
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.10.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO.612/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE
III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT-
XII, VIJAYAPUR AND ALLOW THE APPEAL TO GRANT THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY RS.3,50,000/- ONLY AS CLAIMED
BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL; ORDER FOR
COSTS OF THIS APPEAL.
IN MFA NO.200813/2021:
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMAD YASIN S/O BABULAL KARAJAGI,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O HAMAL COLONY, VIJAYAPURA-586 103.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BABULAL J. KARAJGI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE
REG. NO.KA-28/Y-6643,
R/O HAMAL COLONY, VIJAYAPURA-586 103.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S.S. ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2;
R1-SERVED, BUT UN-REPRESENTED)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:772
MFA No. 200793 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 200813 of 2021
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.10.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO.613/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE
III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER,
MACT-XII, VIJAYAPUR AND ALLOW THE APPEAL TO GRANT THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY RS.3,50,000/- ONLY AS CLAIMED
BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL; ORDER FOR
COSTS OF THIS APPEAL.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and the learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2.
2. The short point that arises for consideration in
these appeals is, whether the motorcycle owned by
respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2 in these
appeals was really involved in the accident or not?
NC: 2025:KHC-K:772
3. The case made out by the appellants in both
these appeals as per the pleadings is that, on 16.07.2015
at about 7:45 a.m., the petitioners in MVC No.612/2016
and 613/2016 were going on a motorcycle owned by their
father-respondent No.1 on National Highway and their
motorcycle was parked by the side of the road, since their
father went to nature call. At that time, an unknown truck
came and dashed against their motorcycle and while these
petitioners were still sitting on the motorcycle, sustained
injuries in the accident. The said truck did not stop after
the accident and it sped away. The petitioners sustained
injuries and they were shifted to Civil Hospital, Vijayapur
and thereafter, to Al-Ameen Hospital, Vijayapur. The
father of the petitioners, who is the owner of the
motorcycle bearing No.KA-28/Y-6643 lodged the complaint
to the police and an FIR came to be registered in crime
No.128/2015. In the said FIR, respondent No.1 alleged
that the driver of the lorry had caused the accident and he
did not see the lorry number. However, it is stated that his
NC: 2025:KHC-K:772
children i.e., the petitioners were sitting on the motorcycle
and they had sustained injuries.
4. The petitions are filed under Section 163-A of
the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that the petitioners
were earning less than Rs.3,300/- per month and
therefore, they are entitled for compensation from the
owner and insurer of the motorcycle on which, they were
sitting at the time of the accident.
5. Respondent No.1 admitted the contents of the
claim petitions and reiterated that such an accident had
occurred.
6. The petitions were opposed by the Insurance
Company, contending that such petitions are not
maintainable and the accident was caused by some other
vehicle and there is no iota of truth in the contentions of
the petitioners. In other words, respondent No.2
vehemently denied the very accident itself.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:772
7. The Tribunal framed issues regarding the
involvement of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-28/Y-6643
in the accident and the evidence was led. The petitioners
in both the petitions were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and a
Medical Officer, who assessed the disability of the
petitioners was examined as PW.3. The respondents were
not examined and no evidence was led on their behalf,
except marking the insurance policy as Ex.R1.
8. After hearing the arguments by both sides, the
Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is inconsistency
in respect of the alleged accident and therefore, the
petitions are not maintainable. In para 11, it was observed
by the Tribunal as below:
"xxxxx From the evidence of Pws-1 and 2
coupled with the police records and MLC report at
Ex.P-1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P4, it appears that on
16-07-2015 the petitioners have sustained injuries
in a Motor Vehicle Accident. However, respondent
No.1 being father of the petitioners, in para No.4 of
his statement of objections, has averred that, on
27-03-2013 at 11.30 the accident occurred caused
by one Truck when the petitioners were sitting on
NC: 2025:KHC-K:772
Motor cycle bearing No. KA-28/Y-6643. This
inconsistency in respect of the alleged causing of
date of accident leads doubt about the occurrence
of the said accident. Further the petitioners
themselves have produced the copies of spot
panchanama, wound certificate of Md. Anis and
Motor vehicle accident report which are marked at
Ex.P-6 to Ex.P8. Ex.P6 is the spot panchanama and
on reading of the same it discloses that on
30-06-2010 the PSI of Traffic P.S., Vijaypur has
conducted spot panchanama near Sindagi Bypass
on NH-13 Vijaypur and in the said Panchanama it is
mentioned that, two lorries bearing No.AP-21/V-
6921 and KA-28/A-7329 were collided with each
other and lorry No.KA-28/A-7329 was found in the
spot. This document at Ex.P6 do not whispers about
conduct of the spot panchanama in the alleged
place of accident as contended by the petitioners.
Ex.P7 is wound certificate of Md.Anis S/o Babulal
Karajagi and as per this document on 16-10-2013
he was admitted in Sri. B.M.Patil, Medical College
and Hospital Vijaypur on the history of Motor cycle
accident. By perusing this document also, it can be
seen that the petitioner Md.Anis had sustained
injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident on 16-10-2013
and not on 16-07-2015 as alleged by him in the
petition. Ex.P8 is the motor vehicle accident report
pertains to Truck bearing No.KA-28/A-7329 and the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:772
date of inspection is shown as 01-07-2010, at the
request of PSI Vijaypur Police station. So this
document also do not whisper sustaining of any
damages by motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-28/Y-
6643. By considering the above material aspects,
I am of the considered view that, the petitioners
have not sustained injuries in a Motor Vehicle
Accident, wherein the Motor cycle bearing
Reg.No.KA-28/Y-6643 was involved. xxxxx"
9. The above observations of the Tribunal would
show that there is lot of inconsistency in the statement
regarding the date of the accident. The written statement
of respondent No.1-the owner of the vehicle shows that
the accident was on 27.03.2013, but the petitioners are
claiming that the accident was on 16.07.2015. It is also
relevant to note that in the investigation, subsequent to
filing of the FIR, there was some evidence, which shows
that the involvement of some other vehicles is also
mentioned. Thus, it shows that an effort was made by the
petitioners to depict that there was an accident and as
such, they are entitled for compensation. Moreover, if at
all the motorcycle owned by respondent No.1 was involved
NC: 2025:KHC-K:772
in the accident, definitely it would have sustained
damages. There is absolutely no material on record to
show that the motorcycle owned by respondent No.1 had
sustained any damages. It is not known, what happened
to the complaint filed by respondent No.1 and therefore,
the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the
very accident itself involving the motorcycle owned by
respondent No.1 is in doubt and is not established. No
fault can be found with the reasoning adopted by the
Tribunal. Therefore, the appeals fail and are accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
LG
