Sri Rajendra vs Subhash Karlekar
2025 Latest Caselaw 6516 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri Rajendra vs Subhash Karlekar on 23 June, 2025

                                                  -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC:21749
                                                         MFA No. 10605 of 2018


                    HC-KAR




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                                BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 10605 OF 2018 (MV-D)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SRI RAJENDRA,
                         S/O YALANKAPPA,
                         AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
                         PLASTIC FLOWER AND RUDRAKSHI MERCHANT

                   2.    KUSUMA,
                         D/O RAJENDRA,
                         AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,

                   3.    TULASI BAI,
                         D/O RAJENDRA,
                         AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,

                         PETITIONERS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS,
                         REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN,
                         THEIR FATEHR RAJENDRA
                         S/O YALANKAPPA,
Digitally signed
by NIRMALA               All ARE R/O HAKKI PIKKI CAMP,
DEVI                     GOUTHAM NAGAR,
Location:                SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
HIGH COURT
OF                                                                   APPELLANTS
KARNATAKA          (BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH M.,ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.    SUBHASH KARLEKAR,
                         S/O RUDRANI,
                         AGE:MAJOR,
                         DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING
                         REG.NO.KA-22/B-5417,
                         R/AT NANDGAD, KHANAPUR TALUK,
                         BELGAUM DISTRICT-591 302.
                               -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:21749
                                        MFA No. 10605 of 2018


 HC-KAR




2.   GAJANAN PRABHAKAR CHAVAN,
     S/O PRABHAKAR,
     AGE:MAJOR,
     OWNER OF LORRY BEARING
     RE NO.KA-22/B-5417,
     R/AT BAZAR PETH, NANDGAD,
     KHANAPUR TALUK,
     BELGAUM DISTRICT-591 302.

3.   THE UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD.,
     AA CIRCLE, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201,
     POLICY NO.240181/31/12/01/00001886,
     VAILD FROM 4.8.2012 TO 03.08.2013.

                                                  RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI.,ADVOCATE FOR R3;
     R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

      THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED            08.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.491/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., VI, SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND ETC,.

      THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

                      ORAL JUDGMENT

The present appeal is filed by the claimants under Section

173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 challenging the judgment

and award dated 08.08.2017 passed in MVC.No.491/2013 by

NC: 2025:KHC:21749

HC-KAR

the Principal Senior Civil Judge and AMACT-VI Shivamogga1

whereunder the claim petition filed by the claimants has been

dismissed by the Tribunal.

2. Heard submissions of learned counsel

Sri M Ravindranath for the appellants and learned counsel

Sri Ravish Benni for respondent No.3 - insurer.

3. It is vehement contention of the learned counsel for

the appellants that the finding of the Tribunal dismissing the

claim petition filed by the claimants is erroneous and contends

that the material on record would indicate that the deceased

had sustained injuries in the accident in question. Hence, it is

contented that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim

petition and awarded compensation. It is further contented that

the testimony of the PW.1 and PW.2 that the deceased initially

took treatment at the Government Hospital in Shikaripura and

due to grievous injuries sustained had been referred to take

treatment at Shivamogga. However, unfortunately, the

deceased died in the bus stand at Shivamogga. Hence, learned

Hereinafter referred as to 'Tribunal'

NC: 2025:KHC:21749

HC-KAR

counsel seeks for allowing of the above appeal and granting of

relief sought for.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 -

insurer justifying the findings recorded by the Tribunal

contends that the findings of the Tribunal is just and proper as

there are many inconsistencies in the case put forth by the

claimants. That the judgment and award of the Tribunal ought

not to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal.

5. The submissions of both the learned counsels have

been considered and the material on record including the

records of the Tribunal have been perused. The question that

arises for consideration is 'whether the judgment and award

passed by the Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition is

erroneous and liable to be interfered with?'

6. It is forthcoming that the Tribunal while

appreciating the material on record has noticed that the

jurisdictional police authorities in Crime No.8/2013 recorded

the statement of the mother of the deceased, who had stated

that the deceased was married to one Sri. Rajendra about 10

years ago and that they had two children. That about 2 years

NC: 2025:KHC:21749

HC-KAR

back the husband of the deceased deserted her. That the

deceased was suffering from cancer and had undergone

surgery in Hyderabad. That the deceased was consuming

alcohol and begging in the KSRTC bus stand Shivamogga. The

police authorities have also recorded the statement of another

lady by name Mis. Tejavathi who identified the dead body of

the deceased and had stated that the deceased was begging in

the bus stand.

7. Noticing the said statements, the Tribunal has

recorded a finding that the claimant had admitted that the

deceased was sleeping in the bus stand and that it appeared

that the claimants have falsely claimed that she was vending

various items at different places. Hence, the Tribunal held that

the claimants had failed to demonstrate that the death of the

deceased was as a result of the accident in question.

8. The Tribunal has further noticed that the injuries

that were mentioned in the post mortem report (Ex.P8) and

inquest mahazar (Ex.P7) did not contain any observations

regarding external injuries appearing on the dead body,

whereas in the wound certificate (Ex.P6) there were certain

NC: 2025:KHC:21749

HC-KAR

injuries and hence, the said documents were not in consonance

with each other.

9. The Tribunal has further noticed that in the inquest

mahazar (Ex.P7) there was a specific reference to a surgery

mark at the abdomen of the deceased. That PW.2 had failed to

identify the injured he has examined at the Government

Hospital Shikaripura along with the photo appearing in the

police notice (Ex.P1). That the testimony regarding the accident

was given nearly 41 days after the alleged accident.

10. It is clear from the aforementioned that the

Tribunal has noticed various inconsistencies in the case put

forth by the claimants. Further, it is relevant to note that there

is no material record which indicates that the deceased had

sustained the injuries in the alleged accident as is sought to be

averred in the claim petition.

11. In view of the aforementioned, the appellants have

failed in demonstrating that the finding of the Tribunal is in any

manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with by this Court

in the present appeal. The question framed for consideration is

answered in the negative.