Karnataka High Court
Sangappa vs Rashid And Anr on 6 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1481
MFA No. 201526 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201526 OF 2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SANGAPPA S/O KRISHNAPPA ANKALAGI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HIRE-ASANGI, TQ. B. BAGEWADI,
NOW RESIDING AT KEERTI NAGAR, VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RASHID S/O BIKKANASAB BEPARI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
Digitally signed
by SHIVALEELA
R/O KOLHAR, TQ. B. BAGEWADI,
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 210.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE MANAGER LEGAL/CLAIMS,
CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, V.A. KALBURGI SQUARE,
DESHPANDE NAGAR, DESAI CROSS,
HUBLI-29.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADV. FOR R2;
R1-SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1481
MFA No. 201526 of 2023
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 03.12.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-V, AT VIJAYAPURA IN MVC
NO.815/2021 AND PASS REASONABLE AWARD.
ALTERNATIVELY THE HON'BLE COURT MAY KINDLY BE
PLEASED TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED
TRIBUNAL FOR A FRESH TRIAL PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO
LEAD THE FURTHER EVIDENCE OF APPELLANT.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 04.03.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI)
Being aggrieved by the judgment of dismissal in MVC
No.815/2021 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Member
MACT-V, Vijayapura dated 03.12.2022, the petitioner is
before this Court in appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1481
2. The factual matrix of the case is that on
16.06.2021 at about 5.30 p.m. when the petitioner was
riding motorcycle bearing No.KA-28/EV-5578 from Kolhar
towards Asangi, a Bolero Pickup van bearing No.KA-28/D-
2730 came from behind in a negligent manner and while
overtaking the petitioner, it brushed the motorcycle resulting
in the petitioner falling down and sustaining injuries.
Immediately he was taken to Bhagyawanti Hospital,
Vijayapura. Petitioner contended that he was agriculturist,
earning Rs.30,000/- per month and he has suffered
permanent disability and as such he is entitled for
compensation from the respondent No.1 and 2 who are the
owner and insurer of Bolero pickup van.
3. Responding to the notice, the respondent No.1
and 2 appeared before the Tribunal and the respondent No.2
alone contested the petition. The respondent No.2-Insurer
contended that there was no such accident as contended by
the petitioner, the compensation claimed is a highly
exorbitant, imaginary and denied the age, income and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1481
occupation of the petitioner. It was also alleged that the
accident occurred due to negligence of the petitioner himself.
4. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the
petitioner was examined as PW1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were
marked. The respondent No.2 summoned 3 documents and
examined its official as RW1 marking Ex.R1 to R3.
5. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal
dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner had fallen
on his own and the involvement of Bolero Pickup van is not
proved.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is
before this Court in appeal.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant /
petitioner contended that the Tribunal failed to assess the
available evidence on record. It is contended that the FIR
and the charge sheet clearly show that after investigation
the driver of the Bolero van was prosecuted for negligent
driving. It is contended that simply because the hospital
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1481
records showed that it was a self fall from his bike, the
Tribunal could not have dismissed the petition.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.2 submits that the medical records including
case sheet which has come into existence out of spontaneity,
unequivocally show that it was an accident by the petitioner
himself and the Bolero van has been implicated later. It is
pointed out that there is delay of more than 24 hours in filing
the complaint and there are discrepancies in the damages
suffered by the Bolero van. Therefore, he seeks dismissal of
the appeal.
9. A perusal of the FIR at Ex.P1 and the complaint at
Ex.P2 would show that the petitioner was riding the
motorcycle on 16.06.2021 with one Harsha as a pillion rider.
It is stated that the Bolero came from behind and while
overtaking the motorcycle of the petitioner, it brushed on the
right side of the motorcycle, resulting in the petitioner falling
down. Thereafter, he was shifted to hospital. The complaint
was lodged on 17.06.2021 at about 6.30 p.m. Evidently,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1481
there is a delay of more than 24 hours in filing the
complaint.
10. The Ex.P2, spot mahazar shows that it was
conducted on 18.06.2021 at about 9.30 a.m. and both the
vehicles were found at the spot. The Bolero had scratch
marks on its left door and the motorcycle had damages on
the front bumper and right crash guard.
11. The MVI report at Ex.P4 shows that it was
inspected on 22.06.2021 and it was found that the Bolero
had a dent on the right side front door. It is evident that this
discrepancy between the spot mahazar at Ex.P3 and the MVI
report at Ex.P4 raises a doubt as to whether the version of
the petitioner could be believable.
12. The Ex.P5 wound certificate shows that the
petitioner was admitted to Bhagyawanti Hospital on
16.06.2021 at about 7.40 p.m. with history of self fall from
bike and was discharged on 20.06.2021. The Ex.R3 which is
the case sheet of Bhagyawanti Hospital shows that
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1481
immediately on admission to the hospital, the petitioner had
informed that it was self fall from the bike and he had
suffered laceration on the right knee measuring 6 x 5 cms
and there was no fracture. The case sheet is clear in this
regard. The copy of the police intimation which is found in
the case sheet also disclose that the hospital authorities had
informed that the RTA was self fall from the bike near Kolhar
to Asangi road at 5.30 p.m.
13. The above evidence on record establishes that
except the FIR and charge sheet, all other records indicate
the self fall from the bike. Cross examination of the PW1
shows that he has denied these entries in the medical
records. The Tribunal after analyzing the evidence has come
to the conclusion that the involvement of the Bolero van is
doubtful. The doubt of the Tribunal get the impetus from the
discrepancy in the damages occurred to the Bolero van.
Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere
with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. The delay in
filing the complaint and not explaining the noting in the
hospital records by a competent person of the hospital and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1481
the discrepancy in the dent occurred to the Bolero van raise
a genuine doubt about the involvement of the vehicle of the
respondent No.1. Obviously, the respondent No.1 has not
chosen to come on record either to accept or deny the fact of
the accident. Thus the fact that the petitioner fell from the
bike on his own gets the support from the case sheet, the
police intimation issued by the hospital, the delay in filing the
complaint, the Bolero van suffering the dent on the right
side. The owner of the Bolero van not appearing to contest
the case is also a circumstance which gains importance. The
rule of preponderance of probability tilts against the
petitioner.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is bereft of
any merits. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
SMP
CT: AK
