Karnataka High Court
Mahaveer Bhujappa @ Bhujabali ... vs G Shankar on 5 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105
MFA No. 102433 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
M.F.A. NO.102433 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHRI MAHAVEER BHUJAPPA
@ BHUJABALI NEMAGOUDAR,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, (NOW NIL),
R/O. JUNJARWAD, TAL: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI G. SHANKAR,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. CLASS-I, PWD CONTRACTOR,
"SHAMLI", AMBALPADY, UDUPI-TQ,
Digitally signed
(OWNER OF TIPPER TRUCK NO.KA-20/B-6404).
by V N BADIGER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. THE MANAGER,
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE
BENCH
COMPANY LIMITED, REGD. OFFICE-201, 208,
CRYSTAL PLAZA, OPP. INFINITI MALL,
LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (WEST), MUMBAI-58.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADV. FOR R2
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.03.2014 IN MVC
NO.1012/2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105
MFA No. 102433 of 2014
HC-KAR
JUDGE AND MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
ATHANI, IN DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION BE KINDLY SET
ASIDE BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.7,50,000/- 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,
WITH COST THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 25.10.2025, COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
1. The Claimant in MVC No.1012/2010 on the file of learned
Additional Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Athani (herein after
referred as the 'tribunal') has come up with this appeal being
aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 05.03.2014 passed
therein, dismissing the claim petition filed under Section 166 of
the M.V. Act.
2. The parties to this appeal are referred to their original
ranking before the tribunal.
3. The Claimant has maintained the petition in MVC
No.1012/2010 under Section 166 of M.V.Act praying for
compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- on the ground that on
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105
HC-KAR
06.01.2010 at about 6.00 p.m., when he was returning to the
village on his motor cycle bearing No.KA-23-U-7531, on Sutatti
- Junjarwad Road, near the house of one Ramagouda Parappa
Nemagoudar, a tipper truck bearing No. KA-20-B-6404 came
from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against
his motorcycle, due to which he suffered injuries mentioned at
Column No.11 of the claim petition and thereby suffered
mentally, physically and financially. He has maintained this
petition against the owner and the insurer of tipper truck bearing
No. KA-20-B-6404.
4. On service of the notice of the petition, the Insurer
appeared before the tribunal through their counsel and contested
the petition by filing the written statement. Whereas, as the
owner remained absent before the tribunal, he was placed ex-
parte.
5. The tribunal, after contest, dismissed the claim petition on
the ground that the Claimant has failed to prove having
sustained injuries in a road traffic accident involving tipper truck
bearing No.KA-20-B-6404 and account of actionable negligence
on the part of its driver. The tribunal came to such conclusion on
the ground that the damages on the vehicle mentioned in IMV
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105
HC-KAR
report marked at Ex.P6 does not correspond with the version of
the complaint marked at Ex.P1 and that the Claimant has not
produced the vehicle seizure panchanama in order to
substantiate involvement of two vehicles. The tribunal
disbelieved the case of the Claimant even on the ground that the
sketch produced at Ex.P4 goes to show that the accident in
question has not taken place in the place as contended by the
Claimant and that the Claimant did not choose to examine the
complainant/informant, who lodged the complaint in connection
with the accident in question. Further, the tribunal relied on the
contents of Ex.P8 i.e. discharge summary wherein history of
injury is mentioned as 'RTA-fall'. Accordingly, the tribunal
proceeded to hold that the Claimant has failed to establish the
alleged accident in question with cogent evidence and that an
accident occurred due to self fall has been given a turn to claim
compensation by creating false documents.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the
Claimant has come up with this appeal on the ground that the
tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition, by not
properly considering the materials placed on record and that the
reasoning of the tribunal is not sound. During the course of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105
HC-KAR
argument, learned Counsel for the Claimant relied on decisions in
Mangla Ram Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited and
others., and others reported in (2018) 5 SCC 656 and Akhil
Hrishikesh Sharma Vs Suresh S. Rachannavar and
Another, reported in 2022 (1) Kar.L.J 477(D) and submitted
that the impugned judgment is contrary to the legal principles
enunciated in these decisions and liable to be set aside.
7. Per contra, learned Counsel for Insurer supported the
findings recorded by the tribunal and submitted that the delay in
filing the complaint, the discrepancies emanating from the
documents available in record and the contents of the discharge
summary marked at Ex.P.8 clearly go to show that the Claimant
did not met with a road traffic accident as contended by him and
on account of involvement of tipper truck bearing No. KA-20-B-
6404 in the said incident.
8. The following points that would arise for consideration are:
i) Whether the tribunal is justified in holding that
the Claimant has failed to prove having sustained
personal injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on
06.01.2010 at about 6.00 p.m., on account of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105
HC-KAR
actionable negligence of the driver of tipper truck
bearing No. KA-20-B-6404?
ii) If no, what is the just compensation payable
to the Claimant?
9. Point No.1: Before proceeding further, it would be useful
to refer to the law on the point of appreciation of pleading and
evidence in the event of dispute regarding the accident or
involvement of the vehicle/s. In Mangla Ram's case referred
supra, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, after referring to several
decisions rendered in Bhimladevi Vs Himachal RTC, (2009) 13
SCC 530, Parmashwari Vs Ameerchand (2011) 11 SCC 635,
N.K.V.Bros.(P)Ltd., Vs M.Karumai Ammal (1980) 3 SCC 457,
Dulcina Farnandes Vs Joaquim Xavier Cruz (2013) 10 SCC 646
and such other cases, restated the legal position that the
Claimant were mere to establish their case on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability and that standard of proof beyond
reasonable doubt cannot be applied by the tribunal while dealing
with motor accidental cases.
10. In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
reiterated that the tribunals must take special care to see that
innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105
HC-KAR
escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some
obscurity there. It is held that save in plain cases, culpability
must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly
reasonable and the tribunal should not succumb to niceties,
technicalities and mystic maybes.
11. Coming to the case on hand, it is the case of the
Claimant that on 06.01.2010 when he was returning from
Junjarwad to his house on his motorcycle bearing No. KA-23-U-
7531, by observing all the traffic rules, at about 6:00 p.m., near
the house of one Ramagouda Parppa Nemagoudar, he met with
an accident due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the
driver of the tipper truck bearing No. KA-20-B-6404, who came
from behind and dashed against his motor cycle. It is further
case of the Claimant that the drive of tipper truck in question
had suddenly lost control over his vehicle and dashed his vehicle
to the motor cycle of the Claimant. It is stated that after hitting
against the motor cycle, the tipper truck went a little ahead and
turned turtle in the road side ditch.
12. During his evidence, the Claimant has reiterated the
averments of the claim petition and produced relevant
documents before the tribunal in support of his contention. The
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105
HC-KAR
Claimant has produced the complaint at Ex.P1, FIR at Ex.P2,
Spot sketch at Ex.P4, wound certificate at Ex.P5, Motor Vehicles
Accident Report at Ex.P6, the Charge sheet at Ex.P7 and order
sheet in CC No.223/2010 at Ex.P42. These documents go to
show that one Sri Ramagonda Parappa Nemagoudar had lodged
a complaint with Aigali Police Station in connection with the
accident in question, based on which the jurisdictional police took
up investigation and laid a charge sheet against the driver of the
tipper truck bearing No.KA-20-B-6404 for the offences under
Sections 279 and 338 of IPC and Section 134 read with Section
187 of MV Act. The jurisdictional magistrate took cognizance of
alleged offences and registered a case in CC No.223/2010,
wherein the driver of the offending vehicle appeared before
concerned court on 27.05.2010 and pleaded his guilt.
Accordingly, he was convicted for the alleged offences and
sentenced to pay fine, which was duly deposited by the driver of
the offending vehicle. Based on these materials available on
record, it is be held that the Claimant has adduced sufficient
evidence before the tribunal to discharge the initial burden on
him of proving the accident as well as actionable negligence on
the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105
HC-KAR
13. Learned Counsel for Insurer has tried to dispute
sufficiency of the evidence adduced by the Claimant in this
regard by relying on the findings recorded by the tribunal
pertaining to this aspect. This Court of the considered view that
such a contention of the Insurer cannot be entertained at all. It
is because in para 12 of the written statement, the Insurer has
specifically contended that the Claimant himself drove his
motorcycle in a zigzag manner and abruptly took the vehicle on
the road and that due to his sole negligence, alleged accident
occurred. Further, during the cross-examination of the Claimant
a suggestion has been made to the Claimant on behalf of the
Insurer that while riding the motorcycle the Claimant suddenly
came on right side of the road and that in an attempt to avoid
the accident made by the truck driver, the truck got toppled.
Thereby the Insurer has admitted presence of both vehicles in
question at the place and at relevant point of time. It is also
relevant to note that the Insurer has not chosen to examine the
driver of the offending vehicle or any other person having
information about the incident, either to dispute the accident or
actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending
vehicle.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105
HC-KAR
14. The Claimant has produced a discharge summary
pertaining to his treatment at Radheshyam Accident and
Orthopedic Hospital and Dental Clinic, Athani. This document
contains a mention about history of injury as "RTA-Fall". In the
considered view of this Court the above mention is not sufficient
to disbelieve the case of the Claimant regarding his having
suffered personal injuries on account of a road traffic accident. It
is because none of other documents placed before the tribunal
probabilises the said entry. Even the Insurer has not made any
effort to summon the relevant documents such as case sheet,
etc., from concerned hospital to show that the Claimant had not
suffered the injuries in a road traffic accident as claimed by him.
15. During the course of argument, learned Counsel for
Insurer drew the attention of this Court to the aspect of delay in
lodging the complaint and tried to contend that such delay gives
an impression of planting of an insured vehicle to claim the
compensation. First of all, the Insurer could not have raised this
contention having admitted the accident. Even otherwise, on
appreciating the materials placed before the tribunal, this Court
does not find any reason to accept the above contention of the
Insurer. It is because in the complaint the informant has
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105
HC-KAR
specifically stated the reason for delay. According to the
informant as he was busy in providing treatment to the
injured/Claimant, there was delay in lodging the complaint. The
contents of the FIR marked at Ex.P2 indicate that the place of
accident was at a distance of about 20 kms from Aigali Police
Station, wherein the complaint was lodged. The Wound
Certificate marked at Ex.P5 and other medical records produced
before the tribunal go to show that the Claimant had suffered
fracture on his left lower limb and that the Claimant had been
taken to Athani for treatment. Further, it is not the case of the
Insured that these places were at reasonable distance so that
the informant could lodge the complaint on the same day.
16. It is also relevant to note that the Insurer has
examined its Relationship Manager namely Shri Bhimashankar as
RW-1 in the case. During his cross-examination, RW-1 has
categorically stated that they had obtained a report from their
Internal Investigating Officer in connection with the accident in
question. However, Respondent No.2 has neither chosen to
produce the said report before the tribunal nor disclosed its
contents for the consideration of the tribunal. As such this Court
opines that an adverse inference has to be drawn against the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105
HC-KAR
Insurer for having withheld such information from the Tribunal.
For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the Tribunal is
not justified in disbelieving the case of the Claimant and in
holding that he has failed to prove the accident in question.
Hence, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
17. Point No.2: The impugned judgment and award
goes to show that though the Tribunal framed four issues for its
consideration, after answering Issue Nos.1 and 2, it proceeded to
hold that Issue No.3 pertaining to quantum of compensation
does not survive for consideration and dismissed the claim
petition. The materials on record indicate that there are sufficient
evidence on record even to decide the quantum of compensation
in the case.
18. In a similar case, Akhil Rishikesh Sharma Vs
Suresh S. Rachannnavar and Another, reported in 2022 (1)
KLJ 477, the Division Bench of this Court has held that no
fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter for the
purpose of determining the quantum of compensation,
particularly when sufficient material evidence is already available
on record. As such, this Court deems it appropriate to determine
the case finally by proceeding to determine the quantum of
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105
HC-KAR
compensation payable to the Claimant, without relegating the
parties to the Tribunal for decision on the said aspect.
19. Further, in Kajal Vs Jagdish Chand and others
reported in AIR 2020 SC 776, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India has laid down the principles for awarding just
compensation for loss of earning, medical expenses,
transportation, special diet, attendant charges, loss or diminution
the pleasures of life by loss of a particular part of body, loss of
future earning capacity. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles,
this Court proceeds to assess the compensation.
20. The materials on record such as Wound Certificate
marked at Ex.P 5 and Discharge Summary marked at Ex.P.8 go
to show that the Claimant had suffered fracture of the tibia and
fibula on the lower one-third of the left side apart from other
simple injuries such as CLW on skull and abrasions. Further, the
medical records indicate that the Claimant has undergone
treatment for the said injuries as an in-patient from 06.01.2010
to 19.01.2010. During the said period he was treated with
interlocking-nailing for the fracture of tibia. If we take into
consideration nature of injuries suffered by the Claimant, in all
probability he needed further treatment for sometime and
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105
HC-KAR
reasonable period for healing up and recovery. Further, the
Claimant has produced some bills/receipts for having spent a
sum of Rs.34,000/- towards hospital expenses and medicines.
21. Added to the above, the Claimant has contended that
prior to the accident he was earning Rs.2,50,000/- per annum by
doing agriculture and that due to the injuries sustained in the
accident he is not in a position to do any work and thereby lost
his earning capacity. First of all the Claimant has not adduced
sufficient evidence before the tribunal to prove his actual income
at the relevant point of time except producing some RORs
standing in his name. As such in the absence of acceptable
evidence to prove actual income of the Claimant, this Court relies
on notional income chart prepared by the KSLSA, wherein
notional income during the year-2010 is shown as Rs.5,500/- per
month.
22. The witness examined on behalf of the Claimant in
this regard i.e., PW-2, Dr. Anand Pandurang Kulkarni, in his
evidence has stated that the Claimant has got 12% permanent
disability for whole limb and 1/3rd of it i.e., 4% permanent
disability to the body. The Claimant has not produced any
reliable document before the tribunal to prove his actual age at
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105
HC-KAR
the relevant point of time. In the Wound Certificate marked at
Ex.P5 the age of the Claimant is shown as 26 years. Whereas, in
the x-ray sheets one can find mentioning of his age as 26
years/28 years. The driving license produced at Ex.P35 is not the
original or a certified copy. Further, one can find some
interpolation by modifying the year of the birth. In view of the
same, it would be proper to presume the age of the Claimant as
between 26-30 years at the time of accident. Thus, the loss of
future income to the Claimant on account of permanent disability
suffered due to accidental injuries works out to ₹44,880/-
(₹5,500/- X 12 X 17 X 4%).
23. For the foregoing reasons, it is held that the Claimant
is entitled for the compensation under the following heads:
Head of Compensation Amount (₹)
Pain and Suffering 30,000/-
Medical Expenses & Incidental Charges 50,000/-
Loss of Income during Treatment
16,500/-
(Rs.5,500/- X 3)
Loss of Future Income 44,880/-
Loss of Amenities 10,000/-
Total 1,51,380/-
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105
HC-KAR
The Claimant is entitled for total compensation of ₹1,51,380/-
(Rupees One Lakh Fifty One Thousand Three Hundred Eighty)
only together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% p.a. from
the date of petition till its realization.
24. Learned Counsel for the Insurer has vehemently
submitted that the case put forth by the Claimant gives an
impression that in the normal course the accident could not have
occurred in the absence of contributory negligence on the part of
the Claimant and as such prayed to take note of the same while
determining the question of the liability to pay the compensation.
It is true that in their written statement the Insurer has
contended about sole responsibility of the Claimant for the
accident in question. However, they have failed to substantiate
the said contention by adducing cogent evidence. As such this
Court does not find any merit in the above contention of the
Insurer.
25. The Insurer has produced a true copy of the Cover
Note at Ex.R1. This document goes to show that the offending
vehicle had a valid and effective insurance policy issued by the
Insurer, as on the date of the accident. They have further
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105
HC-KAR
contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not
holding a valid driving license at the time of the accident and
that there was no valid permit or fitness certificate for the said
vehicle. The Insurer has not adduced any evidence before the
Tribunal to substantiate these contentions. In view of the same,
it is to be held that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and
the insurer respectively of the offending vehicle at the time of
the accident, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation to the Claimant as determined by the Court.
26. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
I. The appeal is allowed.
II. The judgment and award dated 05.03.2014 in MVC
No.1012/2010 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge
& AMACT, Athani is set aside.
III. The claim petition is allowed in part.
The Claimant is entitled to ₹1,51,380/- (Rupees One Lakh
Fifty-One Thousand Three Hundred Eighty) Only with
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105
HC-KAR
interest thereon at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till realization.
IV. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to
pay the said amount, which shall be deposited before the
Tribunal within a period of two months from this day.
V. On such deposit, the Claimant is permitted to withdraw the
entire compensation amount.
VI. Draw an award accordingly.
Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
VB /CT-AN
