Karnataka High Court
Kishore vs Revansiddappa And Anr on 5 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:843
MFA No. 202629 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202629 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
KISHORE S/O GULABSAB CHAWAN,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE,
R/O H.NO. 9-665, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE,
SHAHABAZAR,
KALABURAGI-585 102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MAHADEV S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
LUCYGRACE 1. REVANSIDDAPPA S/O RAJSHEKAR,
LUCYGRACE Date:
2025.02.12
10:43:54 -
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
0800
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS
NEXT FRIEND & NATURAL MOTHER
SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O. RAJSHEKAR NIGGADAGI,
R/O H.NO. 9-394/1, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE,
PATWER GALLI, SHAHABAZAR,
KALABURAGI-585 102.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
N.G. COMPLEX, OPP: MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:843
MFA No. 202629 of 2019
STATION ROAD,
KALABURGI-585 104.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VARUN PATIL, ADV., FOR R1;
SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED
BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT
KALABURAGI IN MVC NO.574/2016, VIDE ORDER DATED
01.10.2019, THEREBY. DIRECT THE APPELLNAT HEREIN TO PAY
COMPENSATION OF RS.1,04,000/- (RUPEES ONE LAKH AND
FOUR THOUSAND) ALONG WITH INTEREST.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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)
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-owner of the offending vehicle and learned
counsels appearing for the respondents, respectively, the
claimant and the Insurance Company.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award
dated 01.10.2019 passed in MVC No.574/2016 on the file of
Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT at
NC: 2025:KHC-K:843
Kalaburagi, (for short 'Tribunal'), respondent No.1 before the
Tribunal is before this Court in appeal.
3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
4. The factual matrix of the case as may be found
from the pleadings is as below:
a) On 23.06.2015 at about 6.15 p.m., when the
petitioner was crossing road while returning from his
School, a motorcycle bearing No.KA-32/S-9183 came in
rash and negligent manner and collided against the
petitioner. As a result, petitioner fell down and sustained
injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government
Hospital Kalaburagi and he had spent huge amount for
treatment. Hence, he filed claim petition before the
Tribunal, contending that the petitioner aged about 12
years, was assisting his parents in milk vending and was
earning Rs.6,000/- per month and due to the injuries,
there is a disability for him and as such, just compensation
may be awarded to him.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:843
b) On being served with the notice, respondent
Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written statements.
Respondent No.1, the owner-cum-rider of the motorcycle
contended that the petition is false frivolous and fictitious,
in fact, there is no such accident which had taken place
and the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean
hands. Hence, the petition has to be dismissed. Inter
alia, he also denied the averments made in the petition.
c) Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company
contended that the vehicle involved in the accident had no
valid insurance as on the date of the incident and
therefore, it has no liability to pay any compensation.
d) On the basis of the above contentions,
appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal. The
mother of the petitioner was examined as PW1 and Exs.P1
to P12 were marked in evidence. Two witnesses were
examined on his behalf as PWs.2 and 3. The official of
respondent No.2 was examined as RW1 and respondent
NC: 2025:KHC-K:843
No.1 was examined as RW2 and the copy of the Insurance
policy was marked as Ex.R1.
e) After hearing both sides, the Tribunal held that
the petitioner had sustained the injuries in the accident
involving the motorcycle owned by respondent No.1 and
as such, it assessed the compensation at Rs.1,04,000/-
based on the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of
Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, The
National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.1 and
held respondent No.1 liable to pay the compensation.
Consequently, petition as against respondent No.2 -
Insurance Company was dismissed. Aggrieved by which,
respondent No.1 is before this Court in this appeal.
5. The learned counsel appearing for appellant-
respondent No.1 contends that the Wound Certificate
nowhere discloses the nature of the injuries suffered by
the petitioner. He points that the FIR was registered with
delay on 24.06.2015. In the said FIR, the date of the
(2014) 14 SCC 396
NC: 2025:KHC-K:843
accident is mentioned at 23.06.2015. However, the
Wound Certificate produced at Ex.P6 would show that
accident had taken place on 22.06.2015. Therefore, there
being a clear discrepancy in respect of the date of the
accident, the vehicle of the appellant has been falsely
implicated in the case. It is also pointed out that in Ex.P6
- Wound Certificate the nature of the injury has not been
described and the petitioner only rely on the Disability
Certificate to show that there was an injury in the form of
fracture of the lateral malleolus of the left leg.
6. The 3rd contention raised by the learned counsel
for the appellant is that the petitioner does not mention
anything that he had taken treatment in any private
hospital and had got applied the POP slab. On the other
hand, the evidence led by PW1 and the other documents
show that the petitioner had approached the Government
Hospital with POP and therefore it is a clear indication that
the vehicle belonging to the appellant was not at all
involved in the accident. Hence, he submits that there
NC: 2025:KHC-K:843
being a discrepancy in the date of the accident the petition
should have been dismissed by the Tribunal.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1-petitioner would submit that the
petitioner was a boy aged about 12 years and he is from
poor family of the society. It is contended that the
statement of the petitioner, aged 12 years, was recorded
by the Police while he was in the hospital on 24.06.2015.
The Ex.P2-complaint would clearly indicate the same.
8. He also submits that the incident had taken
place at 6.15 p.m. on 22.06.2015 and the complaint was
lodged on 24.06.2015 and he was admitted to the hospital
on 24.06.2015 morning. Therefore, he contends that
when a boy aged about 12 years had given a statement,
except the Wound Certificate which says that the accident
had taken place on the 22.06.2015, there is nothing else
on record to show that it was on 22.06.2015. Therefore,
a wrong mention of the date in Ex.P6 - Wound Certificate
cannot be sufficient enough to non-suit the petitioner. In
NC: 2025:KHC-K:843
this regard, he points out that in the cross-examination of
the RW1 he has admitted the accident and it was due to
his fault, hence, seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
9. A careful perusal of the evidence available on
record would show that the PW1, who happens to be the
mother of the petitioner, was not an eyewitness of the
incident, however, she states that the accident took place
on 23.06.2015 at 6.15 p.m. In the cross-examination she
has clarified that they have not given any information to
the Doctor that accident had taken place on 22.06.2015.
She also denies that POP slab was applied to the leg of the
petitioner. Therefore, the cross-examination of PW1 is not
of any help to the appellant herein.
10. A perusal of Ex.P2-complaint to the police
would show that it is a statement recorded by the police
while the petitioner was in the hospital. It was recorded on
24.06.2015 at 2:00 p.m. The police constable had visited
the hospital on being informed of registration of MLC case.
The police investigated the matter and ultimately filed the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:843
charge sheet as per Ex.P3. The Wound Certificate at Ex.P6
show that the petitioner was first seen in the District
Hospital on 24.06.2015 at 11.40 a.m. The history of the
incident is mentioned as RTA on 22.06.2015. It is also
mentioned that there was a plaster of paris slab present
over ankle on the left side which was put at a private
hospital. Therefore, no opinion could be given, since the
patient went against the medical advice. The case sheet of
the hospital at Ex.P8 would show that while admitting, it
was stated that RTA had taken place two days back. It is
worth to note that exhibit P9, which is the OPD record of
the District Hospital dated 23.06.2015 shows that there
was fracture of the left leg. It is worth to note that POP
slab was advised to the petitioner. However, on the next
day, the patient wanted to make an MLC case and
therefore, he was referred to casualty. This document
would be of great importance to establish that as
mentioned in the pleadings, the petitioner had approached
the Government Hospital itself. However, he had not
disclosed that it was a RTA.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:843
11. The cross-examination of RW.2, the appellant
herein, would show that he denies that there was an
accident. However in the cross-examination, when he was
confronted with the criminal case, he admits that he
pleaded guilty. In his examination-in-chief, he explains his
pleading guilty by saying that one of the police officer
convinced him that it is a matter of just paying Rs.500/-
penalty and otherwise, it would amount to rivalry against
the police and the same will be kept in the mind of the
police and they may take revenge and that may affect his
business. This explanation by the RW.2 cannot be
accepted, since it goes against a document which he has
admitted. Moreover, the fact that he admitted his guilt
before the Court of law cannot be obviated by saying that
it was under the coercion or under pressure. Moreover, in
the cross-examination, he admits that the accident
occurred due to his negligence only. This being the
evidence of the appellant herein, the explanation of the
appellant that he has been falsely implicated cannot be
accepted. The conduct of the appellant is also worth to be
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:843
noted. It may be seen that his vehicle was not having the
cover of an insurance policy, but the insurance policy was
got renewed only after three days of the alleged accident.
Hence, this Court do not find any merit in the contention
of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that he
has been falsely implicated in the matter.
12. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
(C.M. JOSHI)
JUDGE
SBS,LG
CT : AK
