[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr. Basappa S/O Hanumappa Shalavadi vs Sri. Jagannath S/O Ganapati on 6 March, 2026
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad, Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3593-DB
MFA No. 103016 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103016 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MR. BASAPPA
S/O. HANUMAPPA SHALAVADI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER,
PRESENTLY NIL, R/O. JAGAPUR,
NARAGUND, DIST: GADAG,
PRESENTLY AT. PLOT NO. 22,
SCHEME -40 HANUMAN NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590019.
...APPELLANT
VISHAL (BY SRI. ASHOK A.NAIK, ADVOCATE)
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
AND:
Digitally signed by VISHAL
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH 1. SRI. JAGANNATH
Date: 2026.03.10 10:29:30
+0530
S/O. GANAPATI SHETTY,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
C/O. PRADEP CONSTRUCTION,
BRINDAVAN APARTMENT,
OPP. B.V.B ENGINEERING COLLEGE,
DIST: DHARWAD-580020.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3593-DB
MFA No. 103016 of 2022
HC-KAR
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED
INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
D.O. 1568, MARUTI GALLI,
BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUNITHA P.KALASOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. RAVINDRA R.MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.06.2022
PASSED IN MVC NO.443/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, DISMISSING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION; AND ETC.
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3593-DB
MFA No. 103016 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, the
appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment
dated 22.06.2022 by the II-Additional District Judge and
MACT, Belagavi. Wherein the appellant-claimant made a
claim petition seeking compensation stating that he has
sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident took
place on 14.02.2017 when he was engaged in road work as
labour at that time, the driver of Bolero Maxi Truck bearing
Regn. No.KA-25/C-2958 came from Vaijgaon by proceeding
towards Ramnagar in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed to the appellant-claimant. As a result of the accident,
he has sustained simple and grievous injuries.
2. The appellant-claimant sustained grievous
injuries in a road traffic accident, has been disputed by the
respondent No.2-Insurance Company. On the basis of the
pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues;
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3593-DB
HC-KAR
1. "Whether the petitioner proves that, on
14.2.2017 at 1.30 p.m., he was engaged in
the road work as a labourer by the side of
Vaijgaon-Tamboli road, at Vaijgaon bridge
and at that time, one Bolero Maxi Truck
bearing No.KA-25/C-2958 came from
Vaijgaon towards Ramnagar in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed to him and
thereby the accident in question was
occurred?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that he
sustained grievous injuries in the accident?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the quantum
and from whom?
4. What Order or award?"
3. The claimant has been examined as PW.1 and one
witness has been examined as PW.2 and got marked Ex.Ps.1
to 23. The Senior Assistant of Insurance Company has
examined as RW.1 and he got marked Ex.Rs.1 and 2.
4. The Tribunal has held that the petitioner has
proved that he has sustained grievous injuries on 14.02.2017
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3593-DB
HC-KAR
however, he has failed to prove that he sustained such
injuries on account of traffic accident involving Bolero Maxi
Truck bearing Regn. No.KA-25/C-2958 by holding so, the
Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition with a
compensatory cost for Rs.3,000/-.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment of dismissal of the
claim petition, the claimant has preferred this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company and
perused the materials placed on record.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant
would contend that as only there was a delay of five days in
filing the complaint, the Tribunal has doubted the claim with
regard to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-
Insurance Company would support the finding of the
Tribunal and submit that the Tribunal has rightly held that
the petitioner who has proved that he has sustained grievous
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3593-DB
HC-KAR
injuries, has not proved that such injuries have been
sustained involving the vehicle insured with the respondent
No.2-Insurance Company.
9. Having regard to the submission of the learned
counsel, this Court has perused the judgment and trial Court
records.
10. PW.1 in his evidence has stated that he was first
shifted to Government Hospital, Ramnagar, immediately after
incident and then shifted to KIMS Hospital, Hubballi and the
claimant has not produced any documents relating to
Government Hospital, Ramnagar i.e., wound certificate or
medical bills. The medical records relating to the claimant
maintained by KIMS Hospital, Hubballi i.e., Ex.P.15 indicates
that he was admitted in the Hospital on 14.02.2017 with a
history "fall from height on 14.02.2017 at 1:30 PM at
Ramnagar Taluk of Joida, while he was at his working place".
PW.1-claimant has stated during his cross-examination that
he had informed the Doctor at KIMS Hospital, Hubballi about
the manner in which the accident had occurred. The said
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3593-DB
HC-KAR
history has been recorded prior to lodging of Ex.P.1-
complaint and registering of FIR-Ex.P.2.
11. Ex.P.1-complaint has been filed on 18.02.2017 by
the Supervisor under whom the claimant was working. PW.1
has admitted in his evidence that the informant was present
at the spot at the time of accident and he was doing road
repair work. Even though, the first informant stated to be
present at the spot, has not filed any complaint immediately.
The complaint has been filed on 18.02.2017, though the
alleged accident has taken place on 14.02.2017. PW.1-
claimant has admitted that he was working under the first
informant since last 20 years. Ex.P.4-IMV report indicates
that there are no fresh damages caused to the said vehicle, it
was inspected on 18.02.2017. The first informant has not
been examined stating that he is dead, but no documents are
placed on record for recording his death. Considering the
above evidence, the Tribunal has rightly held that even
though, the petitioner has proved that he has sustained
grievous injuries on 14.02.2017 at about 01:30 PM, however
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3593-DB
HC-KAR
he has failed to prove that he has sustained grievous injuries
in a road traffic accident involving Bolero Maxi Truck bearing
Regn. No.KA-25/C-2958.
12. Based on the findings, the Tribunal has rightly
dismissed the claim petition with compensatory cost. No
grounds are made out to interfere with the well reasoned
order passed by the Tribunal. In the result, the appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
PJ/CT:VH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
