Karnataka High Court
Smt.Premavva @ Prema vs Hanumantappa on 14 November, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
MFA No.103484/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103484 OF 2016
BETWEEN
1. SMT. PREMAVVA @ PREMA
W/O. YAMANAPPA VADDAR @ KALLAVADDAR,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. BASAVARAJ
S/O. YAMANAPPA VADDAR @ KALLAVADDAR,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
3. HULIGEVVA @ HULIGEMMA
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
D/O. YAMANAPPA VADDAR @ KALLAVADDAR,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2025.11.15
BEING A MINOR, IS REPRESENTED
10:44:44 +0530
BY NEXT FRIEND/MOTHER,
THE APPELLANT NO.1.
ALL ARE R/O: RAMANAGAR, DHARWAD.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
MFA No.103484/2016
AND
1. HANUMANTAPPA S/O. MUDAKAPPA RITTI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: GULAGUNDI,
TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.
2 . RAMAREDDI S/O. HANUMAREDDI KURAHATTI,
R/O: IBRAHIMPUR,
TQ: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: AND AWARD DATED
31.12.2015 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDL. MACT., DHARWAD IN MVC NO.607/2013 AND MODIFY
THE SAME BY AWARDING THE COMPENSATION IN THIS APPEAL
AS CLAIMED IN CLAIM PETITION AND PASS SUCH OTHER
ORDER/ORDERS AS DEEMS FIT BY THIS COURT IN INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
06.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
-3-
MFA No.103484/2016
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)
The appellants-claimants are before this Court in this
appeal filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (For short 'MV Act') aggrieved by the dismissal of their
claim petition in MVC No.607/2013 dated 31.12.2015
passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT.,
Dharwad (for short 'Tribunal').
2. For sake of convenience, parties will be referred
as per their ranks before the Trial Court.
3. The case of the claimants before the trial Court in
nutshell is that:- Claimants are wife and children of
deceased Yamanappa Vaddar @ Kallavaddar, who sustained
injuries in the motor vehicle accident that had taken place
on 13.09.2012 at about 09.30 p.m. when respondent No.1
who came in his motorcycle bearing No.KA-25/EE-2544
from Menasagi side towards Shirol side in a rash and
negligent manner dashed against the husband of petitioner
No.1 and caused the accident. On account of the accident,
Yamanappa Vaddar sustained grievous injuries. On
14.09.2012, he was admitted to KIMS Hospital, Hubballi
and he died on 05.11.2012 during the course of treatment.
Claimants by making the above allegations have prayed for
total compensation of Rs.15,35,000/- under different heads.
4. On issuance of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2
appeared through their counsel and filed their objection
statement wherein they denied the accident, date, time,
and place etc. They further contended that false complaint
was lodged against respondent No.1 through one Fakirappa
Nagannavar Annegiri Taluk, Navalgund on 16.09.2012 in
respect of the alleged accident that had taken place on
13.09.2012 and that is after lapse of 3 days. They further
contended that charge sheet is filed against respondent
No.1 which is registered in CC No.23/2013 which was
challenged by respondent No.1. Petitioners have
manipulated false and concocted case to make unlawful
gain. The deceased has consumed alcohol and sustained
injuries due to fall on road at Annigere on 13.09.2012.
There was no accident as alleged in the petition. Thus there
is no negligence that could be attributed towards
respondent No.1 and liability in turn to respondent Nos.1
and 2. They denied all other averments made in the above
petition and prayed for dismissal of petition with costs.
5. In support of the claim petition, three witnesses
are examined as PW.1 to PW.3 apart from marking Exs.P.1
to P.14 and on behalf of respondents, two witnesses are
examined as RWs.1 and 2 apart from marking Exs.R.1 to
R.3.
6. The Tribunal on scrutiny of the material on
record has dismissed the claim petition with compensatory
costs of Rs.1,000/- on the ground that the false claim is
made by the claimants against respondents and no accident
as alleged in the petition had taken place.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the
claimants-appellants are before this Court.
8. Heard learned counsel Sri Prashant Kadadevar
for appellants, Sri Aravind D. Kulkarni for respondent Nos.1
and 2.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants Sri Prashanth
Kadadevar would submit that Tribunal has grossly erred in
dismissing the claim petition without properly appreciating
the oral and documentary evidence even though the
eyewitness was examined as PW.2. The Tribunal has not
considered the complaint, FIR and charge sheet which are
the relevant documents to decide whether accident had
taken place or not. Once the factum of accident is proved,
the Court need not look into the judgment of criminal case.
But based on the judgment of criminal case, the Tribunal
has dismissed the claim petition, which is erroneous. Hence
prays for allowing the appeal.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.
1 and 2 Sri Arvind D. Kulkarni would submit that there is no
accident at all as alleged in the claim petition which is
clearly established by respondents. They have relied upon
the wound certificate, IMV report in support of their
contention. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and
on perusal of the appeal papers along with original records
of the tribunal, the following points would arise for our
consideration in this appeal:-
1) Whether the claimants-appellants prove that the
accident happened on 13.09.2012 due to rash
and negligent riding of rider of motorcycle
bearing No.KA-25/EE-2544?
2) Whether the claimants prove that the death of
deceased was due to the aforesaid accident?
3) Whether claimants would be entitled for
compensation?
12. Our answers to the point Nos.1 to 3 are in the
Negative for the following reasons:
13. According to the averments made in the claim
petition and oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2, on 13.09.2012 at
about 09.30 p.m., the deceased was going by walk on left
side of Shirol-Menasagi village. At that time respondent
No.1 being rider of motorcycle bearing Regn.No.KA-25/EE-
2544 came from Menasagi side towards Shirol side in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and
thereby caused the accident. According to claimants
because of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained
grievous injuries and he succumbed to those injuries on
05.11.2012.
14. The alleged accident had taken place on
13.09.2012, whereas the deceased died on 05.11.2012.
Thus there is a gap of about 53 days in between the alleged
date of accident and the death of the deceased. The
treatment details are not furnished by the claimants. They
have only produced inquest panchnama to show the death
of the deceased. The death of the deceased on 05.11.2012
is not in dispute. However whether he died due to
accidental injuries or not is to be examined.
15. Respondents have produced two admission
register and OPD slip as per Exs.R.1 and R.2. They reveal
that on 14.09.2012, the deceased was admitted to KIMS
Hospital and discharged from the said hospital on
10.10.2012. He was brought to the hospital by his friend
Fakirappa(PW.2) alleging the history of alcohol consumption
on 13.09.2012 at 09.30 p.m., at his shop and later self-fall
on the road near his residence at Basaveshwara Nagara,
Annigere, Dharwad district.
16. In both Exs.R.1 and R.2, it is clearly stated that
the friend of deceased, PW.2 has taken the deceased to the
hospital with the history of self-fall and before that there
was consumption of alcohol. PW.2 being friend of the
deceased by suppressing these facts has lodged false
complaint belatedly three days after the incident and has
given his evidence in the claim petition that there was Road
traffic accident. According to his evidence, immediately
- 10 -
after the incident, deceased was admitted to the
Government Hospital, Shirol. But no document of said
hospital is produced. He admitted that he himself had taken
the deceased to KIMS Hospital as per Exs.R1 and R2.
17. PW.3 is the doctor at KIMS Hospital who
conducted Postmortem on the dead body. He has deposed
in his cross-examination that as per the history mentioned
in Ex.R.1-case sheet, it was the history of consumption of
alcohol and later self-fall near his residence. According to
him, the deceased was admitted to their hospital on
14.09.2012 and discharged on 10.10.2012 and then
readmitted on 04.11.2012 and died on 05.11.2012. At the
time of discharge from the hospital on 10.10.2012, the
deceased was fully recovered and he was fit for discharge.
Hence he was discharged from the hospital. Thus at no
stretch of imagination, it can be said that the death was due
to accidental injuries sustained by the deceased.
18. PW.1 is the wife of deceased and she has not
seen the incident. Hence, not competent to depose how the
- 11 -
incident had taken place. On the other hand, it is PW.2, who
has admitted the deceased to the hospital with the history
of self-fall after consumption of alcohol which categorically
established that the accident had not taken place as
alleged. Further, IMV report established that no damage to
the vehicle. There is three days delay in lodging the
complaint which is also not properly explained. All the
above facts clearly and categorically establish that the
death of the deceased was not due to road traffic accident
as alleged in the claim petition.
19. Considering all the above facts in proper
perspective, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the petition.
Hence, we find no reason for interference.
20. Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
HMB CT-CMU,
