National Insurance Comapny vs Smt.Yallawwa W/O Demappa Sangolli
2025 Latest Caselaw 10215 Kant

Karnataka High Court

National Insurance Comapny vs Smt.Yallawwa W/O Demappa Sangolli on 14 November, 2025

                                                     -1-
                                                                MFA No.103576/2015




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                        DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
                                              BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103576 OF 2015

                          BETWEEN

                          NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
                          LIMITED, D.O.1723,
                          RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI,
                          NOW REPRESENTED BY
                          THE MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,
                          2ND FLOOR, ARIHANT PLAZA,
                          KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI.
                                                                        ...APPELLANT
                          (BY SRI RAJESH B. RAJANAL, ADVOCATE)
                          AND

                          1.    SMT. YALLAWWA W/O. DEMAPPA SANGOLLI
                                AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COBBLER AND
                                COOLIE WORK, R/O: KENGANUR,
                                TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

Digitally signed by
                          2.    SHRI SHIVAPPA M. KADALI
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
                                AGE: MAJOR, R/O: LAKKUNDI
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
                                TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST:BELAGAVI
BENCH
Date: 2025.11.15
10:24:51 +0530                                                      ...RESPONDENTS
                          (BY   SRI. HANAMANTH R. LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
                                NOTICE SERVED TO R2 AND UREPRESENTED)

                              THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
                          VEHICLES ACT 1988 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
                          AND AWARD PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.2481/2005 DATED:
                          21.08.2015 BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT
                          BAILHONGAL ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND DISMISS THE CLAIM
                          PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
                              -2-
                                       MFA No.103576/2015




     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
10.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)

This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 by the respondent-insurer challenging

the judgment and award passed in MVC No.2481/2005

dated 21.08.2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and

Additional MACT, Bailhongal (for short, 'Tribunal').

2. The parties would be referred with their ranks as

they were before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience

and clarity.

3. Claimant has filed claim petition before the

Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming

compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a road

traffic accident that had taken place on 15.04.2005 at about

03.00 p.m.; when she was waiting for the bus by the side of

Bailhongal bypass road near Anigol bus stop, a Hero Honda

C.D. Dawn motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-24/H-3004 came

from opposite direction and dashed against her and thereby

caused the accident which resulted in grievous injuries i.e.,

deformity of her right middle 1/3rd of leg, fracture of both

tibia and fibula. Hence, she prayed for compensation under

several heads.

4. After service of notice of the petition,

respondent-owner appeared through his counsel and filed

objections, wherein he denied the petition averments in toto

and further contented that compensation claimed by the

claimant is highly exorbitant and further stated that it is

duly insured with respondent No.2. Hence, prayed for

dismissal of petition.

5. Respondent No.2-insurer on service of notice

appeared and filed its objections denying the petition

averments in toto and denied the date, time and place of

accident. It further contended that there is inordinate delay

in lodging the complaint which was not properly explained.

It is only an afterthought in collusion with police officials

and respondent No.1. Hence, prayed for dismissal of

petition.

6. Initially after recording evidence, the Tribunal

came to the conclusion that the road traffic accident

involving the vehicle in question is not proved by the

claimant and thereby dismissed the petition by passing the

judgment on 31.12.2007. Aggrieved by said judgment and

award, the claimant has preferred MFA No.21080/2008

which was allowed on 14.03.2014 and matter was remitted

back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal.

7. After such remand, the claimant examined

eyewitness as P.W.3; the administrative officer of

respondent No.2 was examined as R.W.1; then after

recording the evidence of both sides and hearing the

arguments, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the

accident is proved and granted the compensation of

₹.2,22,880/- with current and future interest at 6% per

annum by saddling the liability on respondent No.2-insurer.

8. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the

present appeal is preferred by the appellant-insurer.

9. Learned counsel for appellant-insurer Sri Rajesh

B Rajanal vehemently would submit his arguments that the

Tribunal has not properly appreciated the oral and

documentary evidence. He further would submit that there

is delay of 10 days in lodging the complaint. Initially, when

the claimant was admitted to the hospital, MLC was issued

and it was not produced by the appellant-claimant even

though there was specific undertaking while remanding the

matter to the Tribunal by this court by the claimant's

advocate that he would produce the extract of MLC register

and examine the doctor. Hence, the respondent-insurer has

produced said extract of MLC register as per Ex.R.2 before

the Tribunal. On perusal of it, initially assault is written and

strike off; then one scooter No.KA-24/297 is written in MLC

report as RTA, but not the motorcycle involved in the

present case. The Tribunal has not considered this aspect

and only relied upon the evidence of PW.3, who is the close

friend of the husband of appellant-claimant. Hence, prayed

for allowing the appeal and to dismiss the claim petition.

10. Learned counsel for respondent Sri Hanamant R

Latur would submit his arguments that there was clear oral

evidence adduced by the claimant and P.W.3 regarding the

manner in which the accident happened. P.W.3 had

withstood the cross-examination. Under those

circumstances, extract of MLC register cannot be relied

upon because there might be some mistake in noting the

vehicle number involved in the accident in said register.

Only because of that, it cannot be said that claimant has

not established the factum of accident. Hence, considering

these aspects, rightly, the Tribunal has allowed the claim

petition and awarded the compensation to the claimant.

Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

11. Having heard the arguments of both sides and on

verifying the records of this Court and Tribunal, the

following point would arise for consideration:

"Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the claimant has established the road traffic accident had taken place on 15.04.2005 at Bailhongal bypass road, near Anigol Bus stop by the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-24/H-3004?"

12. The finding on the above point is in

"affirmative" for the following reasons.

13. The case of claimant before the Tribunal in

nutshell is that she was met with an accident on 15.04.2005

when she was waiting for the bus at bypass road, Anigol

bus stand at about 3.00 p.m., a motorcycle Hero Honda

C.D. Dawn bearing Reg.No.KA-24/H-3004 came in a rash

and negligent manner and dashed against her and because

of that she fell down and sustained grievous injuries to her

leg.

14. It is to be noted here that the alleged accident

had taken place on 15.04.2005. But the complaint was

lodged by the husband of claimant on 25.04.2005 at 11.15

a.m. as per Ex.P.2 and accordingly FIR was prepared as per

Ex.P.1. The husband of claimant is not an eyewitness to the

incident. He has stated in the complaint that the rider of

Hero Honda motorcycle has ridden it in a rash and negligent

manner at about 03.00 p.m. on 15.04.2005 and dashed

against his wife Smt.Yallavva and it is informed to him

through one by Yallappa Dyamappa Talawar, resident of

Kenganuru; the other witnesses Patravva and Chandrappa

Ramappa Muargod of Jalikoppad (P.W.3) have taken her to

Government Hospital, Bailhongal; then he got provided

treatment to his wife at Dr.Mahantesh Hospital and he has

also mentioned the number of motorcycle KA-24/H-3004 in

the complaint.

15. Based on this complaint, a criminal case was

registered and ultimately charge-sheet was filed against the

rider of the motorcycle. Ex.P.4-motor vehicle accident

report establishes that there were no visible damages to the

motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-24/H-3004 when examined

by the ARTO.

16. Ex.P.5-wound certificate is issued by the doctor

at General Hospital, Bailhongal and not by Dr.Mahantesh

Hospital. According to Ex.P.5, on 15.04.2005 at 3.30 p.m.,

the doctor first examined the claimant and she was brought

to the hospital by one Somappa S Damakkanavar with the

history of RTA on 15.04.2005 at 3.15 p.m. The vehicle

details are not mentioned in this wound certificate.

17. Ex.R.2-certified copy of MLC register reveals that

on 15.04.2005 at 04.09 p.m. patient by name Yallava

Dyamappa Sangolli, female 35 years, Kenganuru came to

the hospital with the history of assault (strike off) RTA at

03.15 p.m. at Bailhongal. This MLC register apparently

reveals the name of vehicle as KA-24/2971 and that too it

was a scooter. However, the vehicle alleged to be involved

in this case is Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-

24/H-3004. In local language this Hero Honda motorcycle

would be called as bike and will not be called as scooter.

18. PW.3 said to be the eye witness of the incident

has stated in his affidavit evidence that on 15.04.2005

- 10 -

when they were standing near the bus stand, rider of H.H.

motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-24/H-3004 came and

dashed against Yallavva. In this regard, in his cross-

examination, this witness has deposed that the claimant

was standing in the vacant space by the side of the road

and rider of the motorcycle came and dashed against her,

she fell down and lost her consciousness; by the side of

claimant, one Pattravva was standing and she also fell

down. But she has not sustained injuries. She might have

sustained abrasion injuries; the rider of the motorcycle has

not stopped the vehicle and escaped from the spot and he

has noted the vehicle number at that spot only; but he does

not know to whom said two-wheeler belongs to and who

was riding it; he has not accompanied the claimant to the

hospital.

19. According to Ex.R.2 and Ex.P.5, this claimant was

brought to the hospital by one Somappa Sathyappa

Dyamappanavar. However, he was not examined by the

claimant. Claimant has deposed in her cross-examination

- 11 -

that this Somappa Dyamappanavar is her relative. He and

Chandrappa Murgod (P.W.3) admitted her to the hospital.

However, P.W.3 deposed that he has not admitted her to

the hospital. According to her, after dashing the motorcycle

to her, even rider of the motorcycle fell down about 25-30

feet afterwards. But she does not know what happened to

him.

20. Initially when claimant was examined, she has

not stated the name of P.W.3 in her affidavit evidence and

she has not even mentioned his name in the claim petition.

Only after remand of the matter to establish the accident,

she has stated in her affidavit evidence about P.W.3, which

clearly indicates that P.W.3 is a concocted witness.

21. At the time of remand in MFA No.21080/2008 by

this Court, the learned counsel for appellant had made

submission that as per the wound certificate, immediately

after the accident the claimant was taken to Civil Hospital,

Bailhongal and thus he would examine the medical officer of

said Hospital to provide extract of the MLC register of the

- 12 -