[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Ravindra Gangaram @ Gangadhar Patil vs Gopal S/O. Maryeppa Modekar on 9 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3698
MFA No. 102265 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102265 OF 2015 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SHRI RAVINDRA GANGARAM @ GANGADHAR PATIL,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: MECHANIC, [NOW NIL],
R/O. HANDIGANUR, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI GOPAL S/O MARYEPPA MODEKAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: SERVICEMAN,
R/O. HANDIGANUR, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SS KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1-SERVED)
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
ACT, PRAYING TO, JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.04.2015 IN MVC
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad
Bench
Date: 2026.03.10
09:29:55 +0000
NO.457/2012 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND
MEMBER MACT-II BELAGAVI MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE AND
COMPENSATION MAY KINDLY BE AWARDED AS PRAYED FOR WITH
18% INTEREST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3698
MFA No. 102265 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 25.04.2015 passed
by I Additional District Judge and Member, MACT-II, Belagavi
(for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC no.457/2012, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for appellant
submitted, appeal was by claimant challenging dismissal of his
claim petition. It was submitted at 11.00 a.m. on 08.12.2008,
when claimant was walking by side of Belagavi - Handiganur
road, rider of motorcycle no.KA-22/W-5193 rode it in rash and
negligent manner and dashed against claimant and caused
accident. Claimant sustained grievous injuries and despite
treatment at KLE Hospital, Belagavi did not recover fully and
sustained loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim
petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against owner
and insurer of motorcycle.
3. Despite of service of notice, owner did not appear. He
was placed exparte. Insurer opposed claim petition on all counts.
Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and recorded
evidence. Claimant examined himself and Dr.A.B.Patil as PWs.1
and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P14. An official of insurer was
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3698
HC-KAR
examined as RW-1 and Exs.R1 to R4 got marked. On
consideration, Tribunal held claimant failed to establish
occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent driving of rider
of insured motorcycle and dismissed claim petition, leading to
this appeal.
4. It was submitted merely on ground of delay in filing
complaint, dismissal of claim petition was not justified. It was
contended minor discrepancies in Hospital records which cannot
be attributable to claimant were highlighted to dismiss bonafide
claim after quantifying compensation. On said ground, sought for
interference.
5. On other hand, Sri S. S. Koliwad learned counsel for
insurer supported award.
6. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment,
award and record.
7. As noted above, claimant - appellant herein is
challenging dismissal of claim petition. Though, contentions are
urged about reasons assigned being untenable, perusal of
impugned judgment reveals, after framing appropriate points for
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3698
HC-KAR
consideration, Tribunal meticulously examined record and found
claim petition wanting on several counts. It firstly observed that
claimant was relying upon prosecution records to establish rash
and negligent driving, which indeed revealed owner had pleaded
guilty to allegation of causing accident by rash and negligent
riding of motorcycle, but also noted that same was in
proceedings initiated after three years of accident on a private
complaint and immediately on service of notice, owner had
pleaded guilty. It also noted, in history of injuries column in
Exs.P2 and P3 Wound Certificates and Summary Sheet of
hospital, claimant had stated that injuries were sustained due to
hit by two wheeler on 08.12.2008. But, in Ex.P4 - Summary
Sheet dated 21.07.2009, it was mentioned as fall from
motorcycle one week ago. Tribunal considered these
discrepancies as grave and material, disbelieved claimant and
dismissed petition.
8. It is further seen in Ex.P3 Wound Certificate dated
21.08.2009, date of accident mentioned is 08.12.2008. Even in
Ex.P4 Summary Sheet, date of admission mentioned is
21.07.2009 and date of discharge is 25.07.2009. Further even
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3698
HC-KAR
date of Ex.P5 - hospital receipt is 09.12.2008 gravely
contradicting claimant's version. Thus there appears grave and
irreconcilable contradiction with regard to date of accident,
without any explanation from claimant.
9. In view of above, finding of Tribunal about failure of
claimant to establish nexus between injuries and accident in
question would be based on record. Therefore, I do not see any
good or sufficient grounds to interfere with impugned award.
Hence, following:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
ckk
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 25
