Karnataka High Court
Sattewwa W/O Sabu Metagudd vs Basavaraj S/O Sabu Metagudd And Anr on 17 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1659
MFA No. 200536 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200536 OF 2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SATTEWWA W/O SABU METAGUDD,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O TIKOTA, TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BASAVARAJ S/O SABU METAGUDD,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O TIKOTA,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 109.
Digitally signed
by SHIVALEELA
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
Location: HIGH 1ST FLOOR, HERALAGI BUILDIG,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BEHIND SIDDESHWAR TEMPLE,
VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BIRADAR VIRANAGOUDA, ADV. FOR R1;
SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
COMPENSATION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 03.11.2022 PASSED BY THE I ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT- VI, VIJAYAPURA IN
MVC NO. 1608/2019.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1659
MFA No. 200536 of 2023
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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)
Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
03.11.2022 passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil
Judge and Member, MACT, VIjayapura, in MVC No.1608/2019,
the petitioner is before this Court in appeal.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 18.4.2019, at
7.00 p.m., she was a pillion rider on the motor cycle bearing
No.KA.28.W.9955 and the rider of another motor cycle bearing
No.KA.28.EU.0115 came from behind in rash and negligent
manner, lost control and dashed against the motor cycle over
which she was travelling as a pillion rider. The petitioner fell
down and sustained injuries and she was taken BLDE Hospital,
Vijayapur and then to Yashodhara Hospital, Vijayapur. Lastly,
she was shifted to Gangamai Hospital Solapur. She was an
agriculturist earning Rs.25,000/- per month, aged about 63
years, and due to the accidental injuries, she has suffered
permanent disability. Therefore, she sought adequate
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1659
compensation from the owner and insurer of the offending
vehicle.
3. Pursuant to the notices issued, respondent Nos. 1 and
2 appeared through their counsel, but it was the respondent
No.2 alone who contested the petition. Respondent No.2 denied
the rash and negligent driving by the rider of the offending
motor cycle, denied gravity of the injuries sustained by the
petitioner, termed the compensation claimed as highly
exorbitant, imaginary and untenable. It was contended that
there is delay of 04 days in filing the complaint and the rider
was not having a valid driving licence and as such, the terms
and conditions of the policy having been violated, it be
absolved from liability.
4. On the basis of the above contentions, the Tribunal
framed appropriate issues and recorded the testimonies of the
petitioner as PW1, the Doctor who assessed the disability as
PW2 and Exhibits P1 to P15 were marked in evidence. The
official of respondent No.2 was examined as RW1 and Exhibits
R1 to 5 were marked.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1659
5. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal dismissed
the petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is
before this Court in appeal.
6. On admitting the appeal, respondent Nos.1 and 2
have appeared through their counsel, the trial Court records
have been secured and the arguments of both the sides were
heard.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that the Tribunal has not appreciated the
evidence on record in a proper manner and it erroneously came
to the conclusion that the accident involving the motor cycle
bearing No.KA.28.EU.115 is not proved. He submits that the
delay in filing the complaint has been properly explained and
that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the
rider of the offending vehicle. He contends that the chargesheet
has not been challenged by the Insurance Company and
therefore, the Tribunal has fastened the liability upon the
Insurance Company after assessing the compensation amount.
He submits that the medical records which showed fall from
bike could have been interpreted to mean that it was on
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1659
account of collision by another vehicle. Hence, he seeks
reassessment of the evidence.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2
would submit that there are more than one circumstances
which show that the motor cycle owned by respondent No.1
has been falsely implicated. She submits that the delay of 04
days in filing the complaint; the complainant and the owner of
the offending motor cycle are none else than the two sons of
the petitioner; mentioned in the complaint that the complainant
had enquired the respondent No.1 before filing the complaint;
medical records showing the cause of the injury as 'fall from
bike'; MLC records having not been produced to discard the
suspicious circumstances; respondent No.1 keeping salient
despite service of notice are all the circumstances which show
that the motor cycle insured by respondent No.2 was falsely
implicated. She submits that the Tribunal has rightly assessed
the evidence and dismissed the petition.
9. The perusal of the FIR at Ex.P1 would indicate that
though the accident took place on 18.4.2019 at 7.00 p.m., the
complaint was lodged on 21.4.2019 at 7.45 p.m. The complaint
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1659
mention that on 18.4.2019, the complainant Honnappa and his
mother i.e. the petitioner while travelling on motor cycle
bearing No.KA.28.W.9955 suffered an accident. It states that a
motor cycle rider by name Anil Narasappa Salotagi came from
behind on motor cycle No.KA.28.EU.0115 and dashed from
behind. The complaint mention that he and his elder brother
were engaged in his as well as his mother's treatment and
as such, there is a delay in filing the complaint. It also mention
that though police had come to the hospital on 19.04.2019, he
had sent them back saying that he wants to consult his family
members.
10. It is relevant to note that the complaint, nowhere
mention that the motor cycle No.KA.28.EU.0115 was owned by
none else than his brother Basavaraj. The complaint at Ex.P1
mention that he had enquired his brother Basu. This shows that
there was consultation and deliberations for over three days
before filing the complaint.
11. The medical records, especially, the certificate
issued by Yashodhara Hospital at Exs.P4 and P5 show that the
petitioner and her son Honnappa were admitted to the hospital
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1659
with the history of RTA, fall from two wheeler near Rampur on
18.4.2019. In these documents, there is no mention of collision
by the offending vehicle.
12. The MVI's report at Ex.P6, which is part of the
chargesheet indicates that there were minor damages to the
offending vehicle but there were heavy damages at the front of
the vehicle over which the petitioner was a pillion rider. There
is clear mismatch about the damages to the vehicle and the
narration in the complaint.
13. Though the petitioner has produced the alleged
casesheet of Gangamai Hospital and Yashodhara Hospital at
Exs.P12 and P13, they do not contain the admission notes by
the Casualty Medical Officer. It appears that the selected pages
alone are produced before the Tribunal. The notes of the
Medical Officer would have shown the history with which the
petitioner was admitted to the hospital. Evidently, the MLC
Register Extract has not been produced.
14. It is pertinent to note that the motor cycle over
which the petitioner was a pillion rider was owned by none else
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1659
than her husband as mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P1. The
said vehicle was seized under a panchanama as mentioned in
the chargesheet. The Witness List shows that the motor cycle
over which, the petitioner was riding as a pillion was not having
a valid insurance. This circumstance makes the involvement of
the vehicle owned by respondent No.1 doubtful. The
respondent No.1 is none else than the another son of the
petitioner.
15. Moreover, there was no impediment for the rider
Honnappa, who lodged the complaint to the police to mention
that the offending vehicle was owned by none else than his
brother Basavaraj. Even the petition do not mention that
Basavaraj is son of the petitioner. It is not the case of the
petitioner that Basavaraj has sold the vehicle to anybody else.
Therefore, above circumstances clearly indicate that petitioner
had sustained the injuries by falling from the bike owned by her
husband, driven by her son Honnappa, which did not had the
insurance cover. There is no reason to doubt the medical
records of Yashodhara Hospital.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1659
16. Under these circumstances, the conclusions reached
by the Tribunal as discussed in paras 15 and 16 of the
impugned judgment are proper and correct. There is no need
for indulgence by this Court. Hence, the appeal is bereft of any
merits and liable to be dismissed.
17. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
tsn*
CT: AK
