Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Shobha W/O Madhukar Rasale on 14 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15575
MFA No. 24550 of 2013
HC-KAR
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. 24550 OF 2013 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MAHAVEER CHAMBERS ASHOK NAGAR
NIPPANI, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
REGIONAL OFFICE, ARIHANTA COMPLEX,
KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBLI,
R/BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGANGOUDA R KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
BHARATHI
HM 1. SHOBHA W/O. MADHUKAR RASALE
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH COURT
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.11.18
11:27:28 +0530
2. ARATI D/O. MADHUKAR RASALE
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
3. SONALI D/O. MADHUKAR RASALE
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
4. KIRAN S/O. MADHUKAR RASALE
AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15575
MFA No. 24550 of 2013
HC-KAR
5. SAMABAI W/O. RAJARAM RASALE
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE MINORS
REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER
GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1
RESPONDENT NOS.1 T 5
R/O. MANJARIWADI,
TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM.
6. MAHESH S/O. LAXMAN DABHOLE
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MANJARI, TQ: CHIKODI,
DIST: BELGAUM,
(OWNER MOTOR CYCLE NO.KA-23/U-605)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1
TO R5;
NOTICE SERVED TO R6)
THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS CONNECTED WITH M.V.C
NO.1186/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACK COURT-I, CHIKODI, EXAMINE THE SAME AND SET
ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 04.05.2013.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15575
MFA No. 24550 of 2013
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)
This is the appeal filed by the insurer-appellant under
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'MV
Act') challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC
No.1186/2012 dated 04.05.2013 on the file of Fast Track
Court-I, MACT, Chikodi (in short, 'Tribunal').
2. The parties would be referred to as per their
ranks before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience and
clarity.
3. The claimants have filed a claim petition before
the Tribunal under Section 166 of MV Act claiming
compensation for the accidental death of one Madhukar
Rajaram Rasale, who was pillion rider of motor cycle
bearing No.KA-23/U-605 on 28.06.2011 at 08.15 a.m. and
the rider of the said motor cycle rode it rashly and
negligently and dashed against the stone and thereby the
pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries to his head and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15575
HC-KAR
other parts of the body; immediately after the accident,
Madhukar Rasale was shifted to Dr.Satyajit Shankar Patil
Hospital, Sangli for treatment and he was inpatient in the
said hospital up to 05.07.2011, on which day he succumbed
to the injury sustained in the accident.
4. Petitioners claim to be the wife, children and
mother of deceased. They contended that deceased was
hale and healthy and earning ₹.10,000/- per month from
agriculture and milk vending and thus claimed
compensation under several heads.
5. On issuance of notice, respondent No.1 appeared
through his counsel and filed his objection statement,
wherein he denied the petition averments in toto and
contended that his vehicle is validly insured with respondent
No.2 on the date of accident and hence prayed for dismissal
of petition.
6. Respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel
and filed objection statement, wherein it denied the date,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15575
HC-KAR
place and nature of accident and also denied all the
averments made in the petition. It further took specific
contention that petitioners have created the story managed
with the owner of motor cycle and after two months only,
an afterthought have filed false private complaint against
owner of the motor cycle and there is delay of about 2
months in lodging the said private complaint. It admitted
about the validity of insurance policy as on the date of
accident and denied all other averments made in the
petition. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7. On behalf of claimants, claimant No.1 was
examined as P.W.1, examined a witness as P.W.2, got
marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 and closed their side. On behalf of
respondents, D.L. and R.C. were marked as Exs.R.1 and
R.2, but no evidence was let in.
8. After recording evidence of both sides, hearing
arguments of both sides, the Tribunal came to the
conclusion that the accident occurred as alleged in the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15575
HC-KAR
petition and granted compensation of ₹.8,06,000/- under
various heads and thus partly allowed the petition.
9. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award,
appellant-insurer has filed the present appeal.
10. Heard arguments of both sides.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri
N.R.Kuppelur would submit that the accident itself is
doubtful because about 2 months after the alleged date of
accident the PCR was filed by one third person who was also
not examined before the Tribunal. Furthermore, all records
were concocted and created only at the time of filing the
PCR. The MLC register extract or the doctor who treated the
deceased was not examined to prove the accident. No
eyewitness is examined to prove the accident. However, the
Tribunal casually considered the PCR which was lodged
about two months after the accident; based on which, the
FIR was prepared and charge-sheet is filed against the rider
of the motorcycle and held that the accident is proved and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15575
HC-KAR
casually allowed the claim petition. The delay in filing the
complaint is not properly appreciated by the Tribunal.
Hence, prayed for interference on the impugned judgment
and award.
12. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 Sri
Santosh S Hattikatagi would submit that the accident
happened on 28.06.2011 as alleged in the PCR and also in
the claim petition. The deceased was the only earning
member of the family and immediately after the accident,
he was shifted to Satyajit Hospital, Sangli and he
succumbed to head injury on 05.07.2011. But because of
that shock and losing the bread earner of the family, the
claimants could not have lodged complaint immediately
after the accident. Afterwards, the eyewitness to the
incident has filed PCR before the jurisdictional Court, which
was referred to the jurisdictional police station and then
criminal law was set into motion. After thorough
investigation, the IO has filed charge-sheet, which prima
facie establishes the accident. Hence, claimants have
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15575
HC-KAR
proved the factum of accident. Considering these aspects,
rightly, the Tribunal has awarded compensation. Hence,
prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
13. Having heard the arguments of both sides and
verifying the appeal papers and also the Tribunal records,
the point that would arise for consideration is:
"Whether the appellant-insurer proves
that the accident as alleged in the claim
petition was not at all occurred and thus the
compensation awarded by Tribunal is
erroneous?"
14. The finding of this Court on the above point is in
'affirmative' for the following reasons.
15. The claimants have filed the claim petition before
Tribunal stating that on 28.06.2011 deceased Madhukar
Rajaram Rasale was the pillion rider of the two wheeler
bearing No.KA-23/U-605 and he was going to Manjariwadi
village from Manjari; at that time near Yadurwadi circle on
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15575
HC-KAR
Chikodi-Miraj road, the rider of the said motor cycle rode it
rashly and negligently and thereby caused the accident,
which resulted in grievous injuries to Madhukar Rajaram
Rasale and then he succumbed to those injuries on
05.07.2011 at Satyajit Hospital, Sangli.
16. To substantiate these contentions, claimant No.1
was examined as P.W.1. Admittedly, she is not an
eyewitness to the incident. Hence, her evidence regarding
how the accident happened is of no relevance.
17. P.W.2 is the person who spoke about the milk
vending of the deceased. Thus, the eyewitness to the
incident or the rider of the motorcycle or any other
eyewitness who has the lodged the PCR are not examined
on behalf of claimants.
18. Generally, in all the cases claiming
compensation, if immediately after the accident the
complaint was lodged and criminal law was set into motion
and after investigation charge-sheet is filed in regular
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15575
HC-KAR
practice, then examination of eyewitness to prove the
accident is not required. However, in the case of present
peculiar nature, it was very much required because the
accident happened on 28.06.2011; about 2 months
afterwards i.e., on 24.08.2011 the PCR as per Ex.P.2 was
registered before the JMFC, Chikkodi which is not before the
jurisdictional court in which the accident happened.
19. It is stated in the PCR that the complainant was
standing on the Chikodi-Miraj road, Yadurwadi Circle, along
with Tanaji Bapu Jadhav and Basappa Annappa Kokane on
28.06.2011 at 08.15 a.m.; at that time, the rider of the
motor cycle along with Madhukar Rajaram Rasale were
going in the two-wheeler and the rider of the two-wheeler
rode it rashly and negligently and dashed against a stone
near Yadurwadi Circle and caused the accident and because
of that Madhukar Rajaram Rasale and rider have fallen and
then Madhukar Rasale was shifted to hospital, etc.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15575
HC-KAR
20. He has stated in the complaint that the Chikkodi
Police have refused to receive the complaint; thus, without
any option, he filed the private complaint before the Court.
The said complainant has not taken any steps either to send
the complaint through register post to the concerned police
station or to the concerned S.P. before lodging such PCR.
Only after taking those preliminary steps i.e., if the
complaint is not registered by the concerned jurisdictional
police, or concerned SP had not taken action, the private
complaint is to be lodged before the Court. However, such
procedure was not followed at the time of lodging this PCR.
Thus at the belated stage of about 2 months after the
incident, based on this complaint, the police investigation
was done casually.
21. MAV report is produced as per Ex.P.7, which
reveals some scratches on the vehicle in question. If there
is any damage to the vehicle, the general tendency is to get
it repaired immediately; but in the instant case, even 2
months after the accident, some damages are found in the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15575
HC-KAR
vehicle in question; it cannot be ruled out that those
damages to the vehicle might have been occurred
subsequent to the alleged accident. Further, RTO Inspector
has not stated the age of those damages. For these
reasons, this report is not believable one.
22. Some medical bills are produced in this case as
per Ex.P.9. The first two medical bills in this document are
dated 19.07.2011.
23. As per the case of claimants, the accident
happened on 28.06.2011 and Madhukar Rajaram Rasale
died on 05.07.2011. However, the medical bills of
19.07.2011 were furnished by the claimants. Definitely
these bills would not be pertaining to the deceased or these
bills are concocted subsequently.
24. Immediately after the accident, if a person is
admitted to the hospital with the history of RTA, it is the
duty of doctor to inform it to the nearest police station
immediately. However, in the present case, it appears that
no such report is produced to show that MLC was
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15575
HC-KAR
registered. In PM report, one MLC number is mentioned.
However, it does not reveal for which MLC number it is and
it does not establish the history given in the hospital at the
time of accident. In inquest report, only the head injury was
mentioned i.e. back side of the head and there were no
injuries shown on other parts of the body. However, in PM
report so many other injuries are shown i.e., abrasion
injuries on shoulder, buttock, knee and upper back etc. On
perusal of all the above records, it appears that these
records do not disclose the actual date and place of accident
and involvement of this motorcycle bearing No.KA-23/U-
605 in the said accident.
25. Under these circumstances, it was incumbent
upon claimants to examine at least one of the eye witnesses
to the incident because the accident happened not in a
remote area but in a circle as alleged in the complaint in a
day time. However, none of them was examined to prove
the accident. These things established that the claimants
failed to establish the accident occurred on 28.06.2011 at
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15575
HC-KAR
about 08.15 a.m. in near Yadurwadi circle on Chikodi-Miraj
road, by involving motorcycle bearing No.KA-23/U-605.
However, without examining any of these aspects, only
narrating that PCR is filed; then charge-sheet is filed, the
Tribunal casually comes to the conclusion that the accident
alleged in the claim petition is proved, which is erroneous.
Hence, interference on aforesaid finding is very much
required.
26. For the above reasons, this Court holds that the
claimants-respondents failed to prove the accident and
because of that accident, Madhukar Rajaram Rasale died.
Under those circumstances, granting compensation to the
claimants would not arise at all. Hence, this court proceeds
to pass the following:-
ORDER
a) Appeal filed under Section 173(1) of M.V. Act is
allowed by setting aside the judgment and award
passed in MVC No.1186/2012 dated 04.05.2013 on
the file of Fast Track Court-I, MACT, Chikodi.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15575
HC-KAR
b) The claim petition filed U/S.166 of MV Act is
dismissed.
c) The amount in deposit be refunded to the insurer.
d) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
SH,VMB
CT-CMU
