Karnataka High Court
Saheblal vs Mr. Mahesh And Anr on 24 June, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3348
MFA No. 200495 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200495 OF 2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SAHEBLAL
S/O LALSAB KORBU @ KURESHI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: AT/POST: TAJPUR,
TQ. & DIST: VIJAYAPUR 586 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI BABU H.METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. MAHESH
S/O MAHALINGAIAH HIREMATH,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: IBRAHIMPUR,
TQ. & DIST: VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
Digitally signed
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
Location: HIGH NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
COURT OF 1ST FLOOR, HANAMSHETTY BUILDING,
KARNATAKA GURUKUL ROAD, VIJAYAPUR 586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 20.03.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1531/2014 BY
THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VI AT
VIJAYAPURA AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION OF RS.14,99,000/-
WITH 12% IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3348
MFA No. 200495 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 20.03.2019
passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT-VI, Vijayapur
(for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC no.1531/2014, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Babu H Metagudda, learned counsel submitted,
appeal was by claimant challenging dismissal of claim petition
by tribunal. It was submitted, on 07.05.2012 at 7:00 p.m.
when claimant was riding motorcycle bearing registration
no.KA-28/AX-6912 on Athani-Vjayapura road, driver of car
bearing registration no.KA-28/A-2836 came in rash and
negligent manner, dashed against motorcycle causing accident.
In said accident, claimant sustained several grievous fractural
injuries leading to amputation. Despite taking treatment at
Miraj Wanless Hospital, he did not recover and sustained
permanent physical disability. Alleging loss of earning capacity,
he filed claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act.
3. On service of summons, owner did not appear and
he was placed ex parte, only insurer filed objections denying
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3348
HC-KAR
involving insured vehicle in accident, delay in lodging police
complaint apart from violation of policy conditions. Even cause
of accident due to entire contributory negligence of claimant
was also alleged.
4. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed following:
ISSUES
(i) Whether petitioner proves that, he has sustained
simple and grievous injuries in the Motor Vehicle
Accident that occurred on 07-05-2012 at about
7.00 p.m, in the evening on Vijaypur-Athani road
near Metakinahal Nala Tq/Dist:Vijaypur in the
P.S.limits of Vijaypur Rural Station on account of
rash and negligent driving of TATA Indica Car
bearing Reg.No.KA-28/AX-2836 by its driver as
alleged?
(ii) Whether the respondent NO.2 proves that due to
violation of policy conditions they are not liable to
pay compensation?
(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the
compensation? If so, what is the quantum and
from whom?
(iv) What order or award?
5. Thereafter, it recorded evidence, wherein claimant
examined himself as PW.1 and Dr.S.S.Nagathan, as PW.2.
Exs.P.1 to P12 were marked. Insurer examined its official as
RW.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.4.
6. On consideration, trial Court answered issue no.1 in
negative, issue no.2 not surviving for consideration and issue
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3348
HC-KAR
no.3 by dismissing claim petition. Aggrieved claimant has filed
this appeal.
7. It was submitted owner of vehicle-respondent no.1
did not appear and contest appeal. Therefore there was
deemed admission about occurrence of accident involving
insured vehicle. It was submitted in Ex.P.5 - wound certificate
history of injuries were mentioned as due to Road Traffic
Accident. Therefore, hospital authorities ought to have
registered it as MLC and intimated police. For lapse/omission on
part of hospital authorities claimant cannot be denied
compensation. It was further submitted, immediately after
accident there was a diary entry about accident maintained by
Miraz police. However, they did not register FIR on said basis.
There was clear assertion about said fact by claimant in Ex.P.2.
On above grounds submitted that tribunal has committed grave
error in dismissing claim petition and sought allowing appeal.
8. Sri S.S.Aspalli, learned counsel for respondent
no.2-insurer, on other hand opposed appeal. It was submitted
as per claimant alleged accident occurred on 07.05.2012 at
7:00 p.m. and no complaint was lodged or registered. It was
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3348
HC-KAR
submitted private complaint was filed on 14.02.2014, under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C., nearly two years thereafter. It was
submitted, as per claimant he took in-patient from 08.05.2012
to 24.05.2012 and discharged. There is no proper explanation
for non-filing of complaint even after discharge until filing of
private complaint two years thereafter. It was also submitted
that during cross-examination, claimant admitted that no
efforts were made for filing complaint after discharge from
hospital.
9. Learned counsel further submitted charge sheet got
marked by claimant as Ex.P6 was found to be fake. That apart,
though as per claimant, accident was on account of collision
between motorcycle and car, two wheeler involved in accident
was never seized nor any investigation made. On overall
consideration, as said factors cast grave doubt about
involvement of insured vehicle in accident or about occurrence
of accident as alleged by claimant, tribunal rightly appreciated
facts and circumstances in proper perspective and dismissed
claim petition and there was no scope for interference.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3348
HC-KAR
10. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and award and records.
11. From above and since claimant is challenging
dismissal of claim petition, point that would arise for
consideration is:
"Whether dismissal of claim petition by
Tribunal calls for interference?"
12. This is claimant's appeal challenging dismissal of
claim petition by tribunal on ground that claimant failed to
establish occurrence of accident involving insured vehicle. In
order to establish actionable claim against respondent insurer,
in claim petition claimant pleaded that on 07.05.2012 at 7.00
p.m., when he was riding motorcycle bearing registration
no.KA-28/AX-6912 on Athani-Vijaypur road, carefully and
cautiously observing traffic rules, near Toravi-Metakinahal Nala,
a TATA Indica car bearing registration no.KA-28/A-2836 came
from opposite side driven by its driver in rash and negligent
manner and dashed against motorcycle causing accident.
13. It was further pleaded that in accident, claimant
sustained grievous injuries and admitted to Wanless Hospital,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3348
HC-KAR
Miraj, as indoor patient. To establish occurrence of accident due
to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle, claimant relied
upon police investigation records and hospital treatment
records namely FIR, copy of private complaint, spot
panchanama, MVI report, wound certificate, copy of charge
sheet, medical bills, CT scan report, prescriptions, X-ray
photos, certificate of Medical Board and X-ray films as Exs.P1 to
P12. While, respondent relied on Insurance Policy, vehicle
fitness certificate, endorsement issued by RTO and certified
copy of order sheet in P.C.no.114/2014 marked as Exs.R1 to
R4.
14. Perusal of Ex.P1-FIR would indicate that it was
registered on 13.03.2014 at 12.00 p.m. in pursuance of filing of
private complaint in P.C.no.114/2014 on 20.02.2014 before
Court of JMFC-I, Bijapur. Date of incident is stated to be
07.05.2012. Reason for delay in filing and registering of
complaint is stated as due to offending vehicle not stopping at
accident spot. Ex.P2 is private complaint i.e. P.C.no.114/2014
filed by complainant. In paragraph no.1, thereof manner of
occurrence of accident as stated in claim petition is re-iterated.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3348
HC-KAR
In paragraph no.3, it is specifically stated that complainant had
given a complaint on 09.05.2012 before Miraj City Police
Station and same was registered as Diary no.22/2012. It is
further stated complainant was informed that complaint would
be transferred to Bijapur Rural Police Station, thereafter. It is
stated that complainant was under impression that complaint
would be transferred and investigation would be completed by
Bijapur police. Hence, after discharge from hospital at Miraj, he
had not enquired. But when he noticed that complaint was not
transferred and there was no further action, he attempted to
file complaint before Rural Police Station, Bijapur. As there was
refusal to register complaint, he was constrained to file private
complaint.
15. Ex.P3 is crime detail form, registering crime no.MAG
70/2014 on 20.02.2014. Motor Vehicle Inspector's report at
Ex.P4 is in relation to insured vehicle only and not motorcycle.
It notes no damages on insured vehicle. Ex.P5 is wound
certificate issued by Wanless Hospital, Miraj. History of injuries
column is entered to be alleged due to Road Traffic Accident.
Date of admission of patient is 08.05.2012 and date of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3348
HC-KAR
discharge shown as 24.05.2012. Ex.P6 is copy of alleged
charge sheet dated 25.05.2014. Medical bills and treatment
records would indicate that claimant was admitted on
08.05.2012 for treatment. Though treatment records would
appear consistent with claimant's assertion, there is no
explanation or particulars of RTA such as vehicles involved.
16. Ex.R4 order sheet in P.C.no.114/2014 would
indicate that even as on 18.08.2018, charge sheet and final
report was not filed and Ex.P6 was fake. Thus, there is no
document produced as would implicate insured vehicle in
accident. Even, Ex.P5-wound certificate issued by Wanless
Hospital, Miraj, does not mention any vehicle which had caused
accident.
17. While passing impugned award, tribunal has
examined said aspects in detail and drew adverse inference.
Based on said conclusion, it held issue no.1 about claimant
establishing actionable cause against insured vehicle in
negative. It is seen that conclusion of tribunal is after due
appreciation of entire material on record and by assigning
proper reasons. Reasons cannot be held to be contrary to
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3348
HC-KAR
record or without any basis. No reasons to differ. Hence, point
for consideration is answered in negative. Consequently,
following:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
MSR
Ct;Vk
