[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Master Manoj Brahmraj Kunachi vs Mahesh on 8 April, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5205
MFA No. 102373 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102373/2015 (MV)
BETWEEN:
MASTER MANOJ BRAHMRAJ KUNACHI,
AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
REPT. BY HIS NATURAL M/G MOTHER,
SMT.TANUJA BRAHMARAJ KUNACHI,
R/O: 2135, KORE GALLI, SHAHAPUR,
BELAGAVI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MAHESH SANGAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO.2035, KORE GALLI,
SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI,
TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
KATTIMANI
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI,
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.04.09 10:09:33
+0100 TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.ANUSHA SANGAMI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SK KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VC);
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.06.2015 PASSED IN
MVC NO.1340/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-V,
BELAGAVI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 166 OF
MV ACT & ETC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5205
MFA No. 102373 of 2015
HC-KAR
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 11.06.2015 passed
by IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member MACT-
V, Belagavi, ('Tribunal' for short), in MVC no.1340/2013, this
appeal is filed.
2. Sri Harish S.Maigur, learned counsel for appellant
submitted, appeal was by claimant challenging dismissal of claim
petition and for assessment of compensation. It was submitted
that at 4.30 p.m., on 17.12.2011, when Kumar Manoj Brahmraj
Kunachi was returning from school, rider of motorcycle no.KA-
22/EG-1890, rode it in rash and negligent manner and dashed
against claimant from hind side. Due to which, claimant fell on
road and sustained multiple injuries to his face and teeth.
Immediately after accident, he was taken to Preeti Specialty
Dental Clinic, Belagavi, where he spent ₹15,000/- towards
treatment. Despite same, he did not recover fully and sustained
loss of earning capacity. Therefore he filed claim petition against
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5205
HC-KAR
owner and insurer of motorcycle under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act').
3. On service of summons, owner and insurer appeared
and filed objections. Both denied accident having taken place on
17.12.2011. They contented, there was delay of 6 months in
lodging complaint and private complaint was filed only for
purpose of claiming compensation. Insurer also contended, its
liability was subject to compliance with terms and conditions of
policy and rider having valid driving licence as on date of
accident.
4. Based on pleadings Tribunal framed following issues.
1. Whether the guardian of the minor petitioner proves
that her minor son Manoj has sustained bodily
injuries in the motor vehicle accident that occurred
on 17.12.2011 at 16.30 hours on Shahapur Belgaum
road in front of Jigajinni house within the limits of
Traffic North Police Station Belgaum on account of
rash and negligent riding of motor bike bearing
registration No.KA-22/EG-1890 by its rider?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?
If so, what is the quantum and from whom?
3. What order or award?
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5205
HC-KAR
5. Thereafter Tribunal recorded evidence, wherein
claimant along with Dr. BS Bagi deposed as PWs1 and 2 and got
marked Exs.P1 to P16. Insurer examined its official as RW1 and
got marked Exs.R1 and R2.
6. On consideration, Tribunal held, claimant failed to
establish occurrence of accident was due to fault of rider of
alleged motorcycle and accordingly dismissed claim petition.
Aggrieved, appeal was filed. It was submitted, in order to
establish actionable negligence, claimant relied on police
investigation records namely private complaint, FIR, spot
panchanama, spot map, vehicle seizure measure, motor vehicle
inspection report, statements of petitioner and charge sheet
marked as Exs.P1 to P9. Claimant also relied upon certified copy
of order sheet in CC no.970/2012 as Ex.P12.
7. It was submitted, though complaint filed was as a
private complaint, police had registered FIR, investigated matter
and filed charge sheet against rider of motorcycle, who had
pleaded guilty and paid fine. Same would substantiate
involvement of vehicle and occurrence of accident as alleged. It
was submitted, even mother of claimant deposed and nothing
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5205
HC-KAR
material elicited in her cross-examination. In view of above, it
was submitted, dismissal of claim petition would be contrary to
material on record and calling for interference.
8. On quantum, it was submitted, claimant was 7 year
old, student, who had lost Avulsion and subluxation of teeth
no.11, 21 and 22 which had shifted, mal-positioned and dead,
resulting in loss of chewing power and consequent loss of
earning capacity. It was submitted PW2, who had examined
claimant had assessed disability of 22% to affected part and 7%
to whole body. Therefore, Tribunal ought to have assessed
compensation by referring to a structured formula evolved in
Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National
Insurance Co.Ltd. and Anr., reported in AIR 2014 SC 736.
Failure by Tribunal warranted interference. On above ground
sought for allowing appeal.
9. On other hand, Smt.Anusha Sangami, advocate
appearing for Sri SK Kayakamath, learned counsel for
respondent - insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted that
admittedly even a private complaint herein was filed nearly six
months after alleged accident. It was stated that insurer was not
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5205
HC-KAR
informed about accident even by insured. Despite rider of
motorcycle pleading guilty, same cannot by itself held to
establish accident involving insured vehicle. It was submitted,
Tribunal had assessed entire material on record in proper
perspective and rightly dismissed petition and there was no
justification for warranting interference.
10. Respondent no.2 - owner served and remained
unrepresented.
11. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment,
award and record.
12. From above, following points arise for consideration.
i. Whether dismissal of claim petition in entirety
warrants interference? and
ii. If answer to Point no.1 is in affirmative, then
compensation to which claimant would be
entitled to?
13. Point no.(i) : Perusal of award passed by Tribunal
reveals that claim petition was dismissed on finding that claimant
had failed to establish occurrence of accident involving insured
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5205
HC-KAR
vehicle due to actionable negligence of its rider. Said finding was
based on uncontroverted fact that complaint was not registered
immediately after accident, but claimant had filed private
complaint after nearly six months of incident. Only explanation
offered by claimant in claim petition as well as in private
complaint was immediately after accident, claimant was taken to
Preeti Speciality Dental Clinic at Belagavi and was under
treatment. However, when complaint was sought to be
registered, owner intervened and sought to settle claim. Even on
day next after accident, when claimant sought to register
complaint, owner offered settlement by paying medical
expenses.
14. After completion of treatment, when claimant
approached police, it was realised that no complaint was
registered and police informed that it was too late. Therefore,
claimant was constrained to file private complaint. Though it is
stated that after notice in private complaint, police registered FIR
and also filed charge sheet. It is settled law that prosecution
records would be prima facie evidence and would be subject to
specific evidence led before Tribunal. Ex.P12 does indicate that
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5205
HC-KAR
rider of motorcycle had pleaded guilty for having caused accident
by riding motorcycle in rash and negligent manner. Normally in
case of personal injury claims, medical treatment records are
relied upon to corroborate time and manner of occurrence of
accident. In instant case, claimant has not produced wound
certificate. Though they rely on Ex.P10 - Medical Certificate
issued by Dr.Shivayogi M.Hugar and certificate issued by Preeti
Specialty Dental Clinic as Ex.P11, Ex.P10 is undated while Ex.P11
is issued three years after accident. Ex.P12 - hospital receipts
issued by KLE Hospital as well as Bharath Agency also do not
bear date, while medical receipt issued by Sri Sai Medical and
General Stores is dated 24.12.2011. Even Ex.P13 - prescription
slip issued by Preeti Specialty Dental Clinic are of subsequent
dates. X-ray film of teeth appended to Medico Legal Certificate
issued by PW2 marked as Ex.P15, are not marked. X-ray
produced and marked as Ex.P16 does not bear name of patient.
15. Under above circumstances, in absence of any
specific documents corroborating claimant's version, Tribunal
would be justified in holding claimant having failed to establish
actionable negligence against owner and consequently insurer
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5205
HC-KAR
would not be liable. In view of above, Point no.1 is answered in
affirmative.
16. Point no.2: In view of finding on Point no.1, there
would be no useful purpose in answering Point no.2.
Consequently, appeal is dismissed.
In view of disposal of main appeal, pending application is
dismissed as unnecessary.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
EM,CLK
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 6
