[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Ningavva W/O Yallappa Bhangi vs Shri. Siddappa S/O Satyapap Mudapaki on 28 November, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
MFA No.102326/2022
C/W MFA CROB.No.100158/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 28TH 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.102326 OF 2022
C/W
MFA CROB. NO.100158 OF 2022
IN MFA NO.102326/2022
BETWEEN
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL
OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR,
RAMADEV GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001
REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.12.02
15:24:29 +0530
1. SMT. NINGAVVA W/O. YALLAPPA BHANGI
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. HATTARGI, TQ. HUKKERI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-590010.
2. SHRI KEMPANNA S/O. YALLAPPA BHANGI
AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. HATTARGI, TQ. HUKKERI,
-2-
MFA No.102326/2022
C/W MFA CROB.No.100158/2022
DIST. BELAGAVI-590010.
3. SHRI MARUTI S/O. YALLAPPA BHANGI
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. HATTARGI, TQ. HUKKERI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-590010.
4. SMT SAVITA W/O. SURESH GHASTI
AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. HATTARGI, TQ. HUKKERI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-590010.
5. SHRI SIDDAPPA S/O. SATYAPAP MUDAPAKI
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. A/P. ULLAGADDI, KHANAPUR,
TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI.
(OWNER OF HERO HONDA SPLENDOR
PLUS MOTOR CYCLE NO. KA-23/W-7411)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
NOTICE SERVED TO R5)
THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
PRAYING TP MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
07.05.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.1505/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-VI, BELAGAVI, BY EXONERATING
THE APPELLANT INSURANCE COMPANY FROM THE LIABILITY
AND BY REDUCING THE COMPENSATION AWARDED BY THE
TRIBUNAL BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE ENDS
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-3-
MFA No.102326/2022
C/W MFA CROB.No.100158/2022
IN MFA CROB.NO.100158/2022
BETWEEN
1. SMT. NINGAVVA W/O. YALLAPPA BHANGI
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. HATTARGI, TQ. HUKKERI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591309.
2. SHRI KEMPANNA S/O. YALLAPPA BHANGI
AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE
R/O. HATTARGI, TQ. HUKKERI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591309.
3. SHRI MARUTI S/O. YALLAPPA BHANGI
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. HATTARGI TQ. HUKKERI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591309.
4. SMT. SAVITA W/O. SURESH GHASTI
AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE
R/O. HATTARGI TQ. HUKKERI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591309.
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHRI SIDDAPPA S/O. SATYAPPA MUDAPAKI
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. A/P. ULLAGADDI KHANAPUR,
TQ. HUKKERI DIST. BELAGAVI-591309.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
-4-
MFA No.102326/2022
C/W MFA CROB.No.100158/2022
HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR,
RAMADEV GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE SERVED TO R1)
THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.102326/2022 FILED UNDER
ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC. 1908, PRAYING THAT, THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.05.2022 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1505/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-
VI, BELAGAVI IN AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.7,47,738/-
WITH 6% INTEREST P.A. BE KINDLY MODIFIED BY ENHANCING
TO RS.3,00,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 18% PER ANNUM FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION, TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT, BY
HOLDING RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 HEREIN JOINTLY AND
SEVERALLY LIABLE TO PAY THE COMPENSATION, BY ALLOWING
THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 19.11.2025 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.
-5-
MFA No.102326/2022
C/W MFA CROB.No.100158/2022
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)
The appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the
quantum of compensation and also liability, whereas Cross-
objection is filed by claimants claiming enhancement of
compensation being not satisfied with the judgment and
award dated 07.05.2022 passed in MVC No.1505/2015 on
the file of V Addl. District Judge and Addl. MACT-VI,
Belagavi (for short 'Tribunal') under Section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'M.V.Act').
2. The parties would be referred with their ranks as
they were before trial court for the sake of convenience and
clarity.
3. Claimants have filed the claim petition under
Section 166 of MV Act, praying for compensation in respect
of the death of one Yallappa son of Bhima Bangi in the road
traffic accident involving motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-23/W-7411 that had taken place on 27.05.2014 at
16.45 hours at Anandapur Plot, Hattargi. It is alleged that
deceased who was the pillion rider of said vehicle, has fallen
down and due to that he sustained grievous injuries and he
succumbed to those injuries on 12.09.2014.
4. On service of notice, respondent No.2-insurer
filed its objection statement wherein it has denied the entire
averments in the petition and contended that it is a false
and concocted story. The claimants have filed the false
claim petition and no alleged accident as such had taken
place. The accident occurred only because of negligence of
the deceased. The claimants colluding with hospital
authorities have created the documents and filed the false
claim petition. The rider of the motorcycle was not having
valid driving license. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
5. On behalf of the claimants, claimant No.2 and a
witness were examined as P.W.1 & P.W.2 apart from
marking Ex.P.1 to P.23 before the Tribunal. On behalf of
respondents, R.W.1 was examined apart from marking
Ex.R.1 and R.2.
6. After recording evidence of both sides and
hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal came to the
conclusion that the claimants have established that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of rider
of the motor cycle in question and claimants are entitled for
total compensation of total Rs.7,47,738/- under following
different heads:
1. Towards simple/grievous injuries, pain Rs.20,000/-
and sufferings
2. Towards medical expenses Rs.3,738/-
3. Towards conveyance, attendant, Rs.20,000/-
nourishment and Miscellaneous
4. Loss of future income Rs.7,04,000/-
(Rs.8,000x12x11=10,56,000
10,56,000-3,52,000(1/3rd
For personal expenses)
Total Rs.7,47,738/-
7. Not satisfied with the above compensation,
claimants have preferred Cross objection No.1001158/2022
wherein, they contended that the compensation awarded by
the tribunal is on the lower side. It has not awarded the
compensation in respect of loss towards Estate and funeral
expenses. Hence, prays for allowing the cross-objection and
to enhance the compensation.
8. The learned counsel for appellant/insurer Sri
G.N.Raichur would submit that the Tribunal committed
grave error in not properly scrutinizing the records. There is
an inordinate delay in filing the complaint. The FIR is lodged
only in collusion with police officials. There is no proper
evidence placed before the Tribunal. The vehicle in question
was not at all involved in the accident. There were no
damages to the said vehicle. The deceased was inpatient
from 27.05.2014 to 31.05.2014. But he died about 4
months after this incident and there is no material to show
that only because of the accidental injuries, the injured
died. There was only fracture of right femur as per Ex.P.7-
wound certificate, which is not a fatal injury. Hence, prayed
for allowing the appeal and to set aside the judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal.
9. Having heard the arguments of both sides,
verifying the appeal papers and trial Court records, the
point that would arise for consideration is "Whether the
claimants prove that the accident happened and due to that
husband of claimant No.1 died on 29.02.2014?"
10. Our finding on the above point is in "Negative"
for the following reasons:
11. The case of claimants in a nutshell is that the
accident occurred on 27.05.2014 at 04.45 p.m. when the
husband of claimant No.1 was walking on the side of the
road near Hattargi bus stand, the rider of Hero Honda
Splendor motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-23/W-7411
came from back side and dashed against husband of
claimant No.1 and caused the accident. Due to the accident,
husband of first claimant fell down and sustained fracture of
right femur bone, has taken treatment as in-patient in the
hospital from 27.05.2014 to 31.05.2014 and after discharge
from the hospital, he succumbed to the said injury on
12.09.2014.
12. The alleged accident had taken place on
27.05.2014; whereas the complaint was lodged on
01.06.2014. Thus, there is delay of five days in lodging the
- 10 -
complaint. The only reason assigned for such delay in
lodging the complaint is that the rider of the motorcycle
assured to pay medical expenses; but subsequently did not
pay it.
13. Based on this complaint, the police officials have
registered the case, conducted investigation and filed
charge-sheet on 06.11.2014 against the rider of the
motorcycle who, after service of summons appeared before
trial Court and pleaded guilty of the offences punishable
under Sections 279, 338 of IPC and also under Sections 134
and 187 of the MV Act and paid fine of Rs.1,400/-.
However, before filing of charge-sheet, on 12.09.2014
itself, father of the claimant No.2 died as per death
certificate-Ex.P.8.
14. There is no material produced before the Court to
show that there is nexus between the accident and the
death of deceased Yallappa. According to the wound
certificate as per Ex.P.7, within 15 minutes of the accident,
the injured himself had been to Rajiv Gandhi Rural Hospital
- 11 -
and has sustained only fracture of right femur. If at all there
is any fracture to the femur bone, then that is not a fatal
injury, it only causes fracture to the leg and at any stretch
of imagination; there cannot be any nexus for the death of
a person; that too, when he died about three and half
months after the incident.
15. Furthermore, this death is not informed to the
police and police have filed charge sheet after the death of
said deceased only for the offences under Ss. 279 and 338
IPC and not for the offence under S.304-A IPC in the
charge-sheet. Hence, viewed from any angle, there was
only a fracture of right femur to deceased which has not
resulted in his death.
16. No document is produced to show that after
discharge from the hospital on 31.05.2014, Yallappa was
taking continuous treatment in any other hospital for the
injury sustained by him. Under these circumstances,
without examining these materials, the conclusion of the
Tribunal that there is a nexus between death and accident is
- 12 -
erroneous. The Tribunal has noted in the judgment that
Ex.P.7 as Postmortem report and granted the compensation
for the death of the person in RTA and thus committed
grave mistake.
17. Thus, grant of compensation to claimants under
the head loss of dependency, conveyance and other charges
is completely erroneous.
18. Injury certificate reveals that, within 15 minutes
of accident, the injured person himself had been to Rajiv
Gandhi Rural Hospital and has given the history that alleged
to have been involved in Road Traffic Accident on
27.05.2014 around 05.00 p.m. This reveals that the injured
was conscious and he himself had been to the hospital and
admitted to the hospital. Thus, there was no difficulty for
him to lodge the complaint and hospital authorities are duty
bound to intimate to the police.
19. There is no evidence to show that why
immediately police intimation is not given by the hospital
authorities and why there is such an inordinate delay in
- 13 -
lodging the complaint; further even after death of the
injured, hurriedly the rider of the motorcycle pleaded guilty
of the offence in criminal case.
20. The PW.1 and PW.2 are not eyewitnesses to the
incident. The son of injured has lodged the complaint five
days afterwards without any admissible reason.
Furthermore, the person who had seen the accident is not
examined. Generally, filing of charge-sheet itself is
sufficient to prove the negligence of the rider of the
motorcycle to file the petition under Section 166 of M.V.
Act. However, in the case of present nature, when there is
an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint; when there is
concoction of records; even though within 15 minutes, the
person who sustained injury himself had been to the
hospital without any assistance with consciousness, has not
lodged the complaint, etc., then the examining independent
eye witness is very much required to prove the accident
which is not forthcoming in the present case.
- 14 -
21. Furthermore, even the MVA report shows that
there are no damages to the motorcycle. If really the
motorcycle dashed against the husband of claimant No.1
and caused the accident, there is every possibility of at
least scratches on the motorcycle which are not forthcoming
in the present case.
22. If all the above facts are read together, the only
inference that can be drawn is that the claimants failed to
prove that deceased sustained injury in the road traffic
accident place on 27.05.2014 near Anandpur Plot, Hattargi,
with the involvement of motorcycle bearing registration
number KA-23/W-7411 and died due to the injury sustained
in the said accident. Hence, we are of the considered
opinion that the claimants are not entitled for any
compensation.
23. Without examining these material particulars,
granting compensation by the Tribunal is erroneous. Hence,
we proceed to pass the following:
- 15 -
ORDER
1) The appeal filed under Section 173(1) of
the M.V. Act by the insurance Company is allowed
by setting aside the Judgment and Award passed in
MVC No.1505/2015 dated 07.05.2022 by the V
Addl. District Judge and Addl. MACT VI, Belagavi.
2) The Cross-objection filed by claimants
under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC, 1908 is dismissed
as accident itself is not proved.
3) Claim petition filed in MVC No.1505/2015
dated 07.05.2022 is dismissed.
4) The amount if any, in deposit is refunded
to the insurer.
5) No order as to cost.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
HMB
CT-CMU
