[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shridhar S/O Yallappa Angadi vs Rudragouda S/O Mallanagouda ... on 24 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4540
MFA No. 102701 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102701 OF 2015 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SHRIDHAR S/O YALLAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND SERVICE
AT KARNATAKA JAL MANDALI, DHARWAD,
R/O: HANUMANAL, POST: UPPINA-BETAGERI,
TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RUDRAGOUDA S/O MALLANAGOUDA HANNANNAVAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: HANAMANAL, PO: UPPINA-BETAGERI,
TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SHRINIVAS TALKIES COMPLEX,
1ST FLOOR, MARKET, P.B.NO.54, DHARWAD-1.
...RESPONDENTS
CHANDRASHEKAR (BY SRI NR KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
Date: 2026.03.25 09:36:46
+0000
VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
06.01.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.720/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD, DISMISSING THE PETITION
FILED UNDER SECTION 166 OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT & ETC.
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:4540
MFA No. 102701 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 06.01.2015 passed
by III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Dharwad
('Tribunal' for short) in MVC no.720/2011, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Hanamant R Latur, learned counsel for appellant
submits that, appeal was by claimant challenging dismissal of
claim petition. It was submitted that on 11.06.2010 at 8:00
p.m., when claimant was walking by side of Uppina Betageri,
Harobelawadi road, near Hanumanal cross, rider of motorcycle
no.KA-30/H-3535, rode it in rash and negligent manner and
dashed against claimant causing accident. Claimant took
inpatient treatment at KIMS Hospital, Hubballi, from 12.06.2010
to 15.06.2010 and thereafter from 01.07.2010 to 05.07.2010 at
SDM Dental Hospital, Dharwad. Despite treatment, he did not
recover fully and sustained loss of earning capacity. Therefore,
he filed claim petition against owner and insurer of motorcycle
under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act' for
short).
3. On service of notice, only insurer filed objections
opposing claim petition. It was contended that claim petition was
based on a false complaint lodged by claimant after one month
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4540
HC-KAR
without any justification. That claim petition was vexatious and
based on manipulated record and claim petition was also
opposed on other grounds such as negligence, liability etc.
4. Based on pleading, tribunal framed issues and
recorded evidence. Claimant deposed as PW1 and got marked
Exhibits P1 to P11. On other hand, official of insurer was
examined as RW1 and got marked Exhibits R1 to R4.
5. On consideration, tribunal dismissed claim petition.
Primary reason assigned for dismissal was as per claimant and
police investigation records, accident occurred when claimant
was walking by side of road, driver of insured vehicle drove it in
rash negligent manner and dashed against claimant causing
accident. But, Ex.P11 - discharge summary issued by SDM
Dental Hospital, Dharwad would contain an entry in history of
injuries as fall from motorcycle. It was submitted that mere
minor inconsistency in manner of accident in between records
when independent agency i.e. police after investigation,
arraigned rider of motorcycle by filing Ex.P6 - charge sheet.
Therefore, dismissal of claim petition was not justified. On said
ground, sought for allowing appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4540
HC-KAR
6. On other hand, Sri NR Kuppelur, learned counsel for
respondent no.2 - insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted,
entry in Ex.P11 was apparently based on information furnished
by claimant himself. Moreover, a complaint in instant case was
filed 30 days after accident would cause grave doubt. Under such
circumstances, dismissal of claim petition by tribunal was
justified and sought for dismissal of appeal.
7. From above and since only claimant is in appeal
challenging dismissal of claim petition, point that would arise for
consideration is:
'Whether tribunal erred in dismissing claim
petition?'
8. My answer to same is in 'negative' for following
reasons.
9. At outset, occurrence of accident and claimant
sustaining injuries therein are not in dispute. Claimant alleges
that at time and date of accident while claimant was a
pedestrian, rider of insured motorcycle, rode it in rash and
negligent manner, dashed against claimant and caused accident.
Contents of Exhibit P11 - discharge summary would mention
history of injuries. In history of injuries column, injuries were
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4540
HC-KAR
due to fall from motorcycle. While passing impugned award,
Tribunal noted discrepancy between police investigation records
and Ex.P11 - discharge summary about manner of occurrence of
accident. It also noted that Ex.P2 - complaint was filed 30 days
after incident in question without proper explanation. On a
cumulative assessment of said aspects, it disbelieved claimant
version and dismissed claim petition.
10. Entries in Ex.P11 are admittedly at instance of
claimant himself. In absence of any specific satisfactory
explanation about discrepancy as well as for filing of complaint
belatedly, reliance on Exs.P2 and P11 by tribunal and arriving at
conclusion disbelieving claimant's version cannot be stated to be
a conclusion contrary to record or by ignoring relevant material
and therefore, cannot be stated to be perverse entitling
interference. Consequently, following:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
EM/CLK
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 15
