Karnataka High Court
Kisan Babu Waifale vs Ashok Mayappa Gadade on 10 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11697
MFA No. 24754 of 2012
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24754 OF 2012 (MV-)
BETWEEN:
SRI. KISAN BABU WAIFALE,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SAMBARAGI,
TQ: ATHANI,DIST: BELGAUM.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA MALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. ASHOK MAYAPPA GADADE,
AGED MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: PANDEGAON,
TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM.
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
KOLHAPUR DIVISION,
KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.Y. KALAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR R1-SERVED)
Digitally signed by THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO
MOHANKUMAR B CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN M.V.C NO.1659/2009 ON THE FILE OF
SHELAR
Date: 2025.09.15 THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT ATHANI AND SET
17:49:52 +0530
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.09.2012 MADE IN MV.C
NO.1659/2009 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL.
MACT ATHANI AS THE SAME BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND NOT
SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE MVC
NO.1659/2009 AS PRAYED FOR THEREIN IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11697
MFA No. 24754 of 2012
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the
petitioner, challenging the judgment and award dated
12.09.2012 passed in M.V.C. No. 1659/2009 by the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Athani.
2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal
are as follows:
It is the case of the petitioner that, on 04.08.2008 at
10.00 a.m., the petitioner was going to Sambaragi village
from his garden house on the left side of Aralihatti-
Sambargi road along with his son Mahesh. When they were
so proceeding near Awalekar Garden School, a motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-23/S-3373, came at a high
speed, in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the
petitioner. As a result, he suffered the grievous injuries. The
petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11697
HC-KAR
M.V. Act for the injuries sustained in the road traffic
accident and accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.
3. The owner cum rider of the motorcycle appeared
and filed a statement of objections denying the claim
petition averments, contending that the rider of the
motorcycle possessed a valid and effective driving license as
of the date of the accident and the policy was in force.
Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition against the
owner.
4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of
objections denying the averments made in the claim
petition and contended that the injuries suffered by the
petitioner are simple in nature and if the policy was issued,
the liability is subject to the terms and conditions of it.
Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the
insurance company.
5. The tribunal, based on the pleadings of the
parties, framed the relevant issues.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11697
HC-KAR
6. The petitioner, to substantiate his case,
examined himself as PW1, examined the doctor as PW-2
and marked 31 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-31. In rebuttal,
the respondents have not led oral evidence; however,
marked 2 documents as Exs.R-1 and R-2 with concent.
7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and
documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition with
costs vide judgment dated 12.09.2012.
8. The petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of the
claim petition, filed this appeal.
9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned counsel for the Insurance
Company.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner met with an accident, and sustained grievous
injuries. To prove that the injuries are sustained in the road
traffic accident, the petitioner produced the records. The
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11697
HC-KAR
said records have not been adequately considered by the
Tribunal, and committed an error in dismissing the claim
petition. Hence, he submits that the impugned judgment
passed by the Tribunal is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence,
on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance
company submits that the petitioner has not suffered any
injuries in the road traffic accident, however the injuries
suffered by the petitioner is by a fall from the motorcycle.
Hence, the injuries suffered by the petitioner are not due to
the accident, but due to a fall from the vehicle. Thus, the
Tribunal has rightly appreciated the entire evidence on
record, and dismissed the claim petition. Accordingly, he
prays to dismiss the appeal.
12. Perused the records, and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
13. Though the petitioner contended that he met
with an accident and sustained injuries, to prove that he
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11697
HC-KAR
has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident, he
produced the medical records. From the perusal of the
medical records, it clearly discloses that the alleged
accident took place on 04.08.2008 but, the complaint was
not lodged on the date of the alleged accident. The
petitioner filed a private complaint before the JMFC Court.
14. Further, from the evidence of the doctor-PW-2,
who recorded the history of the injuries, wherein he stated
in the discharge card under the caption 'clinical history and
examination'', the following words can be found.
"H/O. accidental injury to the patient due to fall
from the motorcycle today and he sustained a fracture
to the left leg"
(emphasis supplied)
15. The petitioner has not examined any eyewitness
to demonstrate that the alleged injuries sustained by him
are due to the road traffic accident. The discharge card
marked as Ex.P-23, discloses that the injuries sustained by
the petitioner are due to a fall from the motorcycle and not
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11697
HC-KAR
due to the accident. Hence, the petitioner has failed to
establish that he has sustained the injuries in the road
traffic accident which alleged to have taken place on
04.08.2008. The Tribunal, after considering the material on
record and the evidence of PW-2, the doctor, who has
deposed that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are
due to a fall from the motorcycle and not due to the
accident, was justified in answering issue No. 1 in the
negative. Even, the medical certificate marked at Ex.P-11
does not disclose that the petitioner has sustained the
injuries due to the road traffic accident. Hence, the Tribunal
was justified in dismissing the claim petition. I do not find
any error in the judgment and I concur with the findings
recorded by the Tribunal.
16. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to
pass the following order:
ORDER
The Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11697
HC-KAR
The impugned judgment and award passed by the
tribunal is hereby confirmed.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
NAA
CT:ANB
