Karnataka High Court
Hanamant And Ord vs Sindhutai And Anr on 4 June, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2844
MFA No. 201862 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201862 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. HANAMANT
S/O MAHADEV JADHAV,
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. VARSHARANI
D/O HANAMANT JADHAV,
AGE:27 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
3. ARAVINDKUMAR
S/O HANAMANT JADHAV,
AGE: 25 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by RAMESH OCC: STUDENT,
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH 4. SANIDEV
COURT OF
KARNATAKA S/O HANAMANT JADHAV,
AGE: 24 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
ALL ARE R/O: TIKOTA,
TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHIVASHANKAR H.MANUR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2844
MFA No. 201862 of 2019
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SINDHUTAI
W/O DAGADU MALI,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS AND OWNER OF THE
TRAX CRUISER BEARING NO.MH-10/AG-793,
R/O: FULRAM NIVAS, KENCHARAJ GALLI,
JATH, TQ: JATH,
DIST: SANGLI - 416 404.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, BIDARI COMPLEX,
S.S. FRONT ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
ITS POLICY NO.162600/31/2008/5291
VALID UP TO 11.03.2008 TO 10.03.2009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED BUT UN-REPRESENTED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY SUITABLY
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.04.2019,
PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
VIJAYAPURA, IN M.V.C.NO.2007/2014, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2844
MFA No. 201862 of 2019
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 25.04.2019
passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vijayapura (for
short, 'Tribunal') in MVC no.2007/2014, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Shivashankar H.Manur, learned counsel for
appellants submitted appeal was by claimants challenging
dismissal of claim petition. It was submitted on 24.02.2009 at
10.00 a.m., Smt.Sulochana, a Teacher, aged 40 years was
riding her Scooty on Bagewadi - Kumbhari road, when driver of
Cruiser bearing Reg.no.MH-10/AG-793 drove it in rash and
negligent manner and dashed against Scooty from opposite
direction. It was submitted Smt.Sulochana died on the spot.
However, driver of offending vehicle did not stop at accident
spot. Police were able to trace offending vehicle after 12 days
and filed charge-sheet. In claim petition filed by husband and
children of deceased - Smt.Sulochana, specific allegation was
made that her death due to accident caused by vehicle
belonging to respondent no.1. Despite same, respondent no.1
did not contest claim petition. Only Insurer opposed claim
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2844
HC-KAR
petition alleging that deceased had died due to her own
negligence that, eye witnesses and police had colluded and
registered false case against driver of Cruiser and there was
false implication of insured vehicle etc.,
3. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and
recorded evidence. Claimant no.1 and Balkrishna Kadam (eye
witness) were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8
marked. Official of Insurer was examined as RW.1 and Ex.R1 to
Ex.R4 were got marked. On consideration, Tribunal dismissed
claim petition. Aggrieved, claimant was in appeal.
4. It was submitted main reason assigned by Tribunal
for dismissal was PW2 examined as eye witness before Tribunal
had turned hostile and supported accused in criminal case. It
also noted that Balasaheb Appasaheb Patil, earliest person to
have seen deceased at accident spot had informed claimant
no.1, his brother as well as two others that accident was
caused by a Cruiser vehicle. It observed, same was suppressed
by claimants. It was submitted statement recorded by police in
investigation would not constitute evidence or proof of contents
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2844
HC-KAR
of statement and therefore dismissal of claim petition was
contrary to law.
5. On other hand, Sri Sudarshan M., learned counsel
for respondent - Insurer sought to oppose appeal. It was
submitted informant had mentioned that accident was caused
by Cruiser vehicle. It was submitted statement of complainant
mentioned about shifting of deceased to hospital for treatment
in a Cruiser vehicle. It was submitted claimants in collusion
with police had sought to implicate vehicle which was used for
transportation of deceased to hospital for treatment. On noting
same, Tribunal had dismissed claim petition.
6. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and award.
7. This appeal is by claimant questioning dismissal of
claim petition by Tribunal. Therefore, only point that would
arise for consideration is -
"Whether dismissal of claim petition by
Tribunal would be justified ?"
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2844
HC-KAR
8. Claim petition was filed alleging that on 24.02.2009
when deceased was riding her Scooty at 10.00 a.m., on
Bagewadi -Kumbhari road, driver of Cruiser vehicle belonging
to respondent no.1 drove it in rash and negligent manner and
dashed against Scooty, causing accident, resulting in death of
rider of Scooty - Smt.Sulochana. As vehicle was insured with
respondent no.2, claimants were entitled for compensation
from owner/insurer of Cruiser.
9. Petition was opposed by Insurer specifically
contending false implication of insured vehicle. To establish
accident, claimants relied on prosecution records. While
claimants relied on charge-sheet - Ex.P.7 filed after completion
of investigation, Insurer relied report of its Investigator,
statements of Balasaheb Appasaheb Patil and Balakrishna
Kadam which indicated that informant was aware about
accident having been caused by driver of Cruiser vehicle of Jath
village belonging to Mali. There is also mention about he
informing same to Rajaram Patil and to Ashok Jadav - brother-
in-law of deceased. It is also seen that Balasaheb had
mentioned that it was light coloured Cruiser vehicle. Said
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2844
HC-KAR
information was available as on date of accident itself. Yet FIR
was registered only on 08.03.2009 by mentioning offending
vehicle to be a green coloured Cruiser vehicle belonging to
respondent no.1 - Sindhutai Dagadu Mali of Jath Village.
10. While passing impugned award, Tribunal considered
said material and arrived at conclusion that claim petition was
filed falsely implicating insured vehicle. When police
investigation records mentioned receipt of information about
vehicle belonging to respondent no.1 had caused accident and
same was informed to relative of deceased, delay of 12 days in
registration of FIR substantiated doubt. It also noted,
immediately after accident, Sri Balasaheb went near accident
spot, therefore Cruiser vehicle belonging to Mali was secured to
transport victim to hospital. Apparently, Cruiser vehicle
belonging to Mali is implicated. In absence of explanation by
claimants about above discrepancies, Tribunal would be
justified in coming to conclusion about false implication of
insured vehicle. Conclusion on appreciation of material cannot
be stated to be contrary to record or perverse. Hence, point for
consideration is answered in negative.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2844
HC-KAR
11. Consequently, appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
sn
Ct: Vk
