Karnataka High Court
Yallappa S/O Virupaxappa Hanasi vs Moulasab S/O Divansab Bavakkanavar on 25 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13227
MFA No. 20145 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 20144 of 2013
MFA No. 20146 of 2013
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. 20145 OF 2013 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20144 OF 2013 (MV-I)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20146 OF 2013 (MV-I)
IN MFA No. 20145/2013
BETWEEN:
1. SHIDDAPPA S/O. SANGAPPA HADIMANI
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL,
R/O. BIKKANNAVAR ONI, SAUNDATTI,
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LINGRAJ MARADI & SRI.D.M. MALLI, ADVS)
AND:
1. MOULASAB S/O. DIVANSAB BAVAKKANAVAR
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.,
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
1a. SMT. BIBIJA W/O MOULASAB BAVAKKANAVAR
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
Location: 1b. BUDANSAB S/O MOULASAB BAVAKKANAVAR
HIGH
COURT OF AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
KARNATAKA
1c. SMT. HAJARATBI W/O RIYAZ LALENNAVAR
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
ALL ARE R/O: MANIKATTI VILLAGE,
AT POST: MANIKATTI, TAL: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-580028.
2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, APMC YARD SAUNDATTI,
TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM
THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13227
MFA No. 20145 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 20144 of 2013
MFA No. 20146 of 2013
HC-KAR
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, ADV FOR R2,
NOTICE TO R1(A TO C) ARE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.07.2012, PASSED IN MVC
NO.1677/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, SOUNDATTI, DISMISSING THE PETITION
FILED U/SEC.166 OF MV ACT.
IN MFA NO. 20144/2013
BETWEEN:
1. ANAND S/O. SAVALAGEPPA DIVATAGI
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL,
R/O. HANAMASAGAR VILLAGE,
TAL: RAMDURG, DIST: BELGAUM
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LINGRAJ MARADI & SRI.D M MALLI, ADV)
AND:
1. MOULASAB S/O. DIVANSAB BAVAKKANAVAR
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.,
1a. SMT. BIBIJA W/O MOULASAB BAVAKKANAVAR
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
1b. BUDANSAB S/O MOULASAB BAVAKKANAVAR
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
1c. SMT. HAJARATBI W/O RIYAZ LALENNAVAR
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
ALL ARE R/O: MANIKATTI VILLAGE,
AT POST: MANIKATTI, TAL: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, APMC YARD SAUNDATTI,
TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM
THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13227
MFA No. 20145 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 20144 of 2013
MFA No. 20146 of 2013
HC-KAR
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, ADV FOR R2
NOTICE TO R1(A TO C) ARE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.07.2012, PASSED IN MVC
NO.1678/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, SOUNDATTI, DISMISSING THE PETITION
FILED U/SEC.166 OF MV ACT.
IN MFA NO. 20146/2013
BETWEEN:
1. YALLAPPA S/O VIRUPAXAPPA HANASI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL,
R/O: KUMBAR ONI, SAUNDATTI,
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LINGRAJ MARADI & SRI.D M MALLI, ADVS)
AND:
1. MOULASAB S/O. DIVANSAB BAVAKKANAVAR
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.,
1a. SMT. BIBIJA W/O MOULASAB BAVAKKANAVAR
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
1b. BUDANSAB S/O MOULASAB BAVAKKANAVAR
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
1c. SMT. HAJARATBI W/O RIYAZ LALENNAVAR
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
ALL ARE R/O: MANIKATTI VILLAGE,
AT POST: MANIKATTI, TAL: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-580028.
2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, APMC YARD SAUNDATTI,
TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM
THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13227
MFA No. 20145 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 20144 of 2013
MFA No. 20146 of 2013
HC-KAR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, ADV FOR R2
NOTICE TO R1(A TO C) ARE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.07.2012, PASSED IN MVC
NO.1656/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, SOUNDATTI, DISMISSING THE PETITION
FILED U/SEC.166 OF MV ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
These Appeals are filed under Section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as
'M.V.Act,' for short) by the claimants, challenging the
common judgment dated 11.07.2012 passed in MVC Nos.
1656, 1677 and 1678 of 2010 by the learned Senior Civil
Judge and Additional MACT, Saundatti.
2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these
appeals, are as follows:
3. On 24.07.2009, the petitioners in MVC Nos.
1656 and 1677 of 2010 were proceeding on a Bajaj M-80
motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-24/E-1300. The rider of the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13227
HC-KAR
motorcycle ridden the same at a moderate speed on the
left side of the road. At about 10.00 p.m. near
Jogulabhavi, they met a friend by name Anand, who is the
petitioner in MVC No.1678/2010 stopped their motorcycle
by the side of the road, and they were talking to each
other. At that time, an Ape Passenger Auto bearing
Reg.No.KA-24/4808 driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner, and dashed to the petitioners. Due to
the said impact, the petitioners sustained grievous
injuries. The petitioners filed the claim petitions under
Section 166 of the M.V.Act, claiming compensation for the
injuries sustained by them in a road traffic accident.
Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petitions.
4. A notice was issued to the owner of the
offending vehicle. He appeared through the counsel, but
did not file any statement of objections.
5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of
objections denying the averments made in the claim
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13227
HC-KAR
petitions. It is contended that the offending vehicle has
been falsely implicated by the petitioners colluding with
the police. It is contended that the driver of the offending
vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license
as of the date of the accident, and there is a breach of the
policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim
petitions against the Insurance Company.
6. The Tribunal, clubbed all the claim petitions
and, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed
relevant issues in common, and the common evidence was
recorded.
7. The petitioners, in all the claim petitions, to
substantiate their case, examined themselves as P.Ws.1 to
3, examined the doctor as P.W.4, and marked 68
documents as Exs.P1 to P68. Conversely, the respondents
before the Tribunal have not led any evidence; however,
marked 3 documents as Exs.R1 to R3 with the consent.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13227
HC-KAR
8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and
documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petitions vide
judgment dated 11.07.2012.
9. The petitioners, aggrieved by the dismissal of
the claim petitions, filed these Miscellaneous First Appeals.
10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the petitioners, and the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the
claim petitions. He submits that the accident occurred due
to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle, and the charge sheet is filed against the
driver of the offending vehicle. The said aspect was not
adequately appreciated by the Tribunal, and committed an
error dismissing the claim petitions. Hence, on these
grounds, he prays to allow the appeals.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13227
HC-KAR
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment, and
submitted that the petitioners have failed to establish that
the accident occurred on the alleged date. He submits that
the Tribunal considered the entire evidence on record, and
has rightly passed the impugned judgment. Hence, he
prays to dismiss the appeals.
13. Perused the records, and considered the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
14. The point, that would arise for consideration is,
"Whether the petitioners prove that the
Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the
claim petitions without considering the entire
evidence on record?"
Reg.Point:
15. It is the case of the petitioners that they met
with an accident, and sustained injuries. The petitioners
have produced a charge sheet marked as Ex.P6. The
Insurance Company has seriously disputed the occurrence
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13227
HC-KAR
of the alleged accident. The petitioners, to prove the claim
petitions, examined themselves as P.Ws.1 to 3. In the
cross-examination, it was suggested to P.Ws.1 to 3 that
the auto-rickshaw came towards the extreme right side of
the road. P.Ws.1 to 3 stated that the auto-rickshaw driver
attempted to overtake the bus which was going ahead of
him, and in the process, he came to the wrong side of the
road and dashed to their motorcycle. There is no whisper
either in the petition or in their examination-in-chief that
the driver of the auto-rickshaw attempted to overtake the
bus. For the first time, in the cross-examination, they
stated that the auto-rickshaw driver attempted to overtake
the bus. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on
record has raised a serious doubt regarding the alleged
accident as pleaded by the petitioners. The foundation for
the case of the petitioners to establish the accident in the
manner pleaded is the police records. A careful scrutiny of
the police records, the discrepancies and manipulations
could be seen in collusion with the police and the doctors.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13227
HC-KAR
The said discrepancies and manipulations have not been
explained by the petitioners. The material witness was the
eyewitness by name Shankarappa Maruti Ghate, and the
said witness was not been examined, to prove the alleged
accident, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considering the
entire evidence on record has rightly held that the
petitioners have failed to establish that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending vehicle. In view of the same, the
point is answered accordingly.
16. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Appeals are dismissed.
(ii) The impugned common judgment dated
11.07.2012 passed in MVC Nos. 1656,
1677 and 1678 of 2010 by the learned
Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT,
Saundatti is hereby confirmed.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13227
HC-KAR
(iii) The Tribunal records, if any, shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal concerned,
forthwith.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
MBS
CT:BSB
