Karnataka High Court
Manjunath S/O Narayanappa Kerudi vs The Depot Manager on 26 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13517
MFA No. 101058 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101058 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATH S/O NARAYANAPPA
KERUDI, AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: NOW NIL, R/O: BISALALLI,
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G.S. HULMANI, ADV)
AND:
THE DEPOT MANAGER,
NWKRTC, MAGOD ROAD,
RANEBENNUR
OWNER & SELF INSURER OF KSRTC
BUS BEG NO. KA-27/F-82 OF
RANEBENNUR DEPOT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADV)
MOHANKUMAR THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE
B SHELAR
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.02.2014, PASSED IN MVC.
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B NO.539/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
SHELAR
Date: 2025.09.27
11:23:30 +0530 MACT, RANEBENNUR, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION U/S.166 OF
MV ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13517
MFA No. 101058 of 2014
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V.Act,' for
short) by the appellant-claimant, challenging the judgment
and award dated 04.02.2014 passed in MVC No.539/2010
by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge & MACT,
Ranebennur.
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal,
are as follows:
3. On 14.02.2010, at about 12.45 p.m., the
petitioner was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.KA-16/K-9718 on Ranebennur-Guttal road. At that
time, the driver of the NWKRTC bus driven by its driver in a
rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed to the
petitioner's motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner sustained
grievous injuries. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition
under Section 166 of the M.V.Act claiming a compensation
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13517
HC-KAR
for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.
4. The NWKRTC filed statement of objections
denying the averments made in the claim petition, and
prays to dismiss the claim petition.
5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the
parties, framed the relevant issues.
6. The petitioner, to substantiate his case,
examined himself as P.W.1, examined three witnesses as
P.Ws.2 to 4, and marked 18 documents as Exs.P1 to P8. On
the other hand, the NWKRTC has not examined any witness
nor produced any documents.
7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and
documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition vide
judgment dated 04.02.2014.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13517
HC-KAR
8. The petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment and
award passed in MVC No.539/2010, filed this Miscellaneous
First Appeal.
9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the petitioner, and the learned counsel for the NWKRTC.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the bus. To prove the accident, the
petitioner has produced a charge sheet marked as Ex.P6.
The Tribunal has committed an error in discarding Ex.P6
and held that the accident has not occurred. He also
submits that there is no rebuttal evidence on behalf of the
NWKRTC. Therefore, the Tribunal should have allowed the
claim petition, on the contrary has dismissed the claim
petition. The petitioner has also examined the doctor to
prove the disability. The Tribunal without considering the
said aspect has dismissed the claim petition. Hence, he
submits that the judgment passed by the Tribunal is
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13517
HC-KAR
perverse and arbitrary, and accordingly, prays to allow the
appeal.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the NWKRTC
submits that the petitioner has failed to prove the accident
and the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic
accident. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on
record has rightly dismissed the claim petition. Hence, on
these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
12. Perused the records, and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
13. The point, that would arise for my consideration
is regarding the liability.
14. Admittedly, the charge sheet is filed against the
petitioner himself. The petitioner has produced the charge
sheet marked as Ex.P6, which discloses that he himself is
negligent in riding the motorcycle, and the accident
occurred due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13517
HC-KAR
himself. Moreover, the petitioner has sustained simple
injuries. The Tribunal placing reliance on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED VS PREMALATHA SHUKLA AND OTHERS
reported in 2008(1) CIVIL LAW JOURNAL 120, held as
follows:
"Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 and 168
Claim petition on death in accident of tempo trax and a
truck- FIR lodged after accident and investigation against
driver of truck finally closed as truck could not be traced
out - Claim petition directed against driver, owner and
insurer of tempo trax - FIR marked as an Exhibit as
both the parties intended to rely upon it - Claimant
intended to prove the factum of accident from FIR -
Claimants could not be permitted to contend that rest of
the contents of FIR were not admissible for want of proof
- Therefore, awarded fixing the liability of compensation
on driver owner and insurer of tempo trax could not be
sustained and it was set aside."
15. Considering the proposition laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra, the
Tribunal has recorded its finding that the petitioner has
failed to prove that the accident in question was occurred
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13517
HC-KAR
due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
NWKRTC bus. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence
on record, has rightly dismissed the claim petition. In view
of the above discussion, the point for consideration is
answered accordingly.
16. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Appeal is dismissed.
ii) The judgment and award dated 04.02.2014
passed in MVC No.539/2010 by the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Ranebennur,
is hereby confirmed.
iii) The Tribunal records, if any, shall be transmitted
to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
MBS
CT: BSB
