Karnataka High Court
Bhimappa S/O Laxaman Naik vs Harichandra Bhimu Dhang on 25 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13224
MFA No. 25288 of 2012
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 25288 OF 2012 (MV-)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. BHIMAPPA S/O LAXAMAN NAIK
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRI & COOLIE
R/O. AINAPUR, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELGAUM
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. CHAITRA M.M, ADV FOR
SRI. K.H BAGI, ADV)
AND:
1. HARICHANDRA BHIMU DHANG
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
SRI. MAHANTESH HARICHANDRA DHANG
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRI.
R/O. ANKALI, TQ: CHIKKODI
DIST: BELGAUM.
MOHANKUMAR 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
B SHELAR
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
CO. LTD., NO.4567, K.C.ROAD,
1ST FLOOR NEAR PRABHAKAR
Location: TALKIES, CHIKKODI
HIGH TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELGAUM.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARUNA DESHAPANDE, ADV FOR R2,
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 28.04.2012, PASSED IN MVC
NO.2847/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT-V, BELAGAVI, DISMISSING THE PETITION
FILED U/SEC. 166 OF MV ACT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13224
MFA No. 25288 of 2012
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner challenging the
judgment and award dated 28.04.2012 passed in MVC
No.2847/2011 by the learned IV Addl. District and
Sessions Judge and Member, MACT-V, Belagavi (for
short, 'the Tribunal').
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as
follows:
3. On 12.02.2020, the petitioner and another person
were proceeding from Kagawad to Chikkodi on a motor
Cycle bearing registration No.KA-29/J-2182, and the
petitioner was riding the said motor cycle. When they
came near the accident spot, at that time, the driver of
the tractor bearing registration No.KA-23/TA-669
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13224
HC-KAR
drove his vehicle from the opposite direction at a high
speed, and in a rash and negligent manner, and
dashed to the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner
sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner and the
pillion rider both filed the claim petitions in MVC
No.2846 of 2011 and 2847 of 2011 seeking
compensation. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim
petitions.
4. The owner of the alleged offending vehicle filed a
statement of objections denying the averments made
in the claim petition and admitted that he is the owner
of the offending tractor bearing registration No.KA-
23/TA-669 and that the vehicle was insured with the
insurance company and accordingly, prays to dismiss
the claim petition against the owner of the Tractor.
5. The insurance company filed a statement of objections
denying the averments made in the claim petition and
also contended that no such alleged accident occurred
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13224
HC-KAR
on 12.02.2010 and contended that the complaint was
lodged on 20.02.2010. Also, there is an abnormal
delay in lodging the complaint regarding the alleged
accident. It is contented that the petitioner was
proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-29/J-2182 and the petitioner in the instant case
was riding the motorcycle without possessing a driving
license and they fell down from the said motorcycle. As
a result, the accident occurred.
6. It is contended that the petitioner has falsely
implicated the tractor bearing registration No.KA-
23/TA-669. Hence, it is contended that the driver of
the alleged offending vehicle was not possessing a
valid and effective driving licence as of the date of
accident, as such, there is a breach of policy
conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petitions
against the insurance company.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13224
HC-KAR
7. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties,
framed separate issues, and recorded common
evidence.
8. The petitioner in MVC No.2846 of 2011 was examined
as PW-1, the petitioner in MVC No.2847 of 2011 was
examined as PW-2, examined the doctor as PW-3 and
marked 29 documents as Exhibit P-1 to P-29.
9. In rebuttal, neither the owner, nor the insurance
company has led any oral evidence, however, the
insurance company got marked one document as
Exhibit R-1 with consent.
10. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and
documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petitions
vide judgment dated 28.04.2012.
11. The petitioner in MVC No.2847/2011, being aggrieved
by the impugned judgment and award, filed this
appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13224
HC-KAR
12. Heard the arguments of Smt.Chaitra M.M., learned
counsel for the petitioner, and Smt.Aruna Deshapande,
learned counsel for respondent No.2--insurance
company.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Tribunal, without considering the material placed on
record, committed an error in dismissing the claim
petition on the ground that the petitioner has failed to
prove the alleged incident; there is a delay in lodging
the complaint and that the petitioner has not sustained
injuries in the road traffic accident, and the petitioner
has falsely implicated the alleged tractor to claim the
compensation.
14. She submits that the charge sheet is filed against the
driver of the tractor. Neither the owner, nor the
insurance company has challenged the charge sheet.
The Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim petition.
On the contrary, it has dismissed the claim petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13224
HC-KAR
Hence, on these grounds, she submits that the
impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal
is arbitrary, erroneous and perverse. Accordingly,
prays to allow the appeal.
15. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the
tractor had been falsely implicated to claim
compensation. She also submits that there is a delay
of 8 days in lodging the complaint. The petitioner has
not shown any cause for lodging the complaint at a
belated stage. She submits that the Tribunal
considering the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 has rightly
dismissed the claim petitions. Hence, on these
grounds, she prays to dismiss the appeal against the
insurance company.
16. Perused the records and considered the submissions of
the learned counsel for the parties.
17. The point that would arise for consideration in this
appeal is:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13224
HC-KAR
"Whether the petitioner proves that the
Tribunal committed an error in
dismissing the claim petition without
considering the entire evidence on
record?"
18. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was
riding a motorcycle on 12.10.2010. The Tractor came
from the opposite direction and dashed to the
motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner and pillion rider
sustained grievous injuries. To prove the accident, the
petitioner has produced the charge-sheet marked as
Exhibit P3. To establish that the accident occurred due
to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the
offending tractor, the petitioner in MVC No.2846 of
2011 was examined as PW-1. He reiterated the claim
petition averments in the examination-in-chief.
19. During cross examination of PW-, he has deposed that
the accident occurred on 11.02.2010. But the records
produced by the petitioner disclose that the alleged
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13224
HC-KAR
accident occurred on 12.02.2010 and further, he
pleaded ignorance regarding the ownership of the
motorcycle on which he was traveling as a pillion rider
and to the question that there was no impediment for
him to lodge the complaint immediately after the
alleged accident, he stated that he suffered an injury
on abdomen. As per wound certificate/Ex.P-5, the
petitioner in the said case has suffered only abrasion
on the head and he was not admitted as an inpatient in
any hospital.
20. The petitioner in MVC No.2847 of 2011 was examined
as PW-2. He reiterated the claim petition averments in
the examination-in-chief, and he has deposed that the
accident occurred on 12.02.2010.
21. In the cross examination of PW-2, it is elicited that the
motorcycle belongs to him, but he pleaded ignorance
of the registration number of his vehicle, and he
admitted that he did not own any other vehicles before
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13224
HC-KAR
purchasing the alleged motorcycle and he admitted
that was not holding any driving license as of the date
of accident.
22. Though the PW2 claims to be the owner of the
motorcycle, he was unable to say as to from whom he
had purchased it. Further, from the perusal of the
complaint as well as the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2
and documentary evidence adduced, it discloses that
the petitioners have put up a different story in the
complaint, claim petition and also in the evidence,
altogether there are contradictions in the complaint
and the claim petition.
23. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence has
raised a doubt regarding the occurrence of alleged
accident and also the alleged injuries sustained by the
petitioner.
24. The Tribunal was justified in recording its finding that
the petitioner has failed to prove that he has sustained
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13224
HC-KAR
injuries due to the rash and negligent driving on the
part of the driver of the tractor and failed to prove that
the alleged accident involving the motor cycle bearing
registration No.KA-29/J-2182 and the Tractor bearing
registration No.KA-23/TA-669. The Tribunal has
considered the entire evidence on record and has
rightly dismissed the claim petition. I do not find any
error in the impugned judgment and award.
25. In view of the above discussion, the point for
consideration is answered accordingly.
26. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(I) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is
dismissed.
(II) The impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal is hereby
confirmed.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13224
HC-KAR
(III) The Registry is directed to transmit
the Trial Court Records to the
Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
RK
CT: BSB
