[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt.Danawwa @ Nannawwa W/O Narayana @ ... vs Krishna S/O Channappa Chawan on 26 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4767
MFA No. 103207 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103207 OF 2015 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.DANAWWA @ NANNAWWA
W/O NARAYANA @ NANNAPPA
CHAWAN @ LAMANI,
AGE: 39 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. SRI MOTILALAL
S/O NARAYANA @ NANNAPPA
CHAWAN @ LAMANI,
AGE: 23 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE,
3. SRI BHOJAPPA
S/O NARAYANA @ NANNAPPA
CHAWAN @ LAMANI,
AGE: 22 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI 4. SRI SANTOSH
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
S/O NARAYANA @ NANNAPPA
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.03.27 09:25:09
+0000 CHAWAN @ LAMANI,
AGE: 20 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE,
5. SRI SOMANATH
S/O NARAYANA @ NANNAPPA
CHAWAN @ LAMANI,
AGE: 20 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4767
MFA No. 103207 of 2015
HC-KAR
ALL ARE R/O: NAGAVI TANKA,
TQ: & DIST: GADAG.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI DEEPAK C. MAGANUR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KRISHNA
S/O CHANNAPPA CHAWAN,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O:H.NO.180-E,
NACHINOLA,
BARDEZ GOA,
DIST: GOA, NORTH GOA.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
SUJATHA COMPLEX, P.B.ROAD,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RS ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.08.2015
PASSED IN MVC NO.223/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT GADAG, DISMISSING THE
PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 166 OF MOTOR VEHICLE 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
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4767
MFA No. 103207 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 06.08.2015 passed
by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag ('Tribunal', for
short) in MVC no.223/2012, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Deepak C. Maganur, advocate appearing for Sri
Chandrashekar P. Patil, learned counsel for appellants submitted
that appeal was by claimants challenging dismissal of claim
petition. It was submitted at 9:00 p.m. on 01.05.2012, when
Narayan alias Nanappa was pillion rider on motorcycle no.GA-
03/L-3068 on Dindur - Shingatarayanakeri Tanda road, rider of
motorcycle rode it in rash and negligent manner, lost control.
Narayan fell down sustained fatal injuries and died during
treatment. Alleging loss of dependency, his wife and four
children filed claim petition against owner and insurer of
motorcycle under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV
Act' for short).
3. Despite notice, owner did not appear and was placed
ex-parte. Insurer opposed claim petition on all grounds. Based
on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence.
Claimant no.1 deposed as PW1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4767
HC-KAR
P15. Official of insurer deposed as RW1 and got marked Exhibits
R1 to R6.
4. On consideration, Tribunal held claimants had failed
to establish occurrence of accident due to actionable negligence
against a person other than deceased and there was
manipulation of records for purposes of claim and dismissed
claim petition imposing costs. Aggrieved, present appeal was
filed.
5. It was submitted, to substantiate actionable
negligence, claimants relied upon police investigation records. It
was submitted, Ex.P7 - charge sheet arraigned one Shivappa,
rider of motorcycle was prosecuted for offences under Section
279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. Same would be sufficient to
prima facie establish actionable negligence against owner and
insurer. Under such circumstances, dismissal of claim petition
was not justified.
6. Apart from above, it was submitted, smell of alcohol
noted at time of admission was not corroborated in post-mortem
examination report. Under such circumstances, even presuming
that deceased had consumed alcohol at time of accident and
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4767
HC-KAR
therefore, negligent in causing accident would be unjustified and
warranting interference. On above ground sought for allowing
appeal.
7. On other hand, Sri Rajashekhar S. Arani, learned
counsel for respondent no.2 - insurer opposed appeal. It was
submitted, Tribunal had assessed evidence on record in proper
perspective and arrived at right conclusion for dismissing claim
petition. Therefore, no interference was warranted.
8. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment
and award as well as copy of Ex.R1 made available for my
perusal by learned counsel for respondent no.2 - insurer.
9. From above and since claimants are in appeal
challenging dismissal of claim petition, point that would arise for
consideration is:
"Whether impugned judgment and award
dismissing claim petition warrants
interference?"
10. Though normally it would be sufficient for claimant in
a claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act to rely upon police
investigation records to establish actionable negligence against
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4767
HC-KAR
rider/owner/insurer of offending vehicle and in instant case,
police investigation records do arraign one Shankar for causing
accident resulting in death of Narayan due to rash and negligent
riding of motorcycle. While passing impugned award, Tribunal
noted that complaint in instant case was filed 19 days after
incident and first record of incident was in Ex.R1 - indoor patient
case sheet issued by Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences,
Hubballi, a Government Hospital, recorded in column for history
of injuries that injuries were sustained due to RTA on 01.05.2012
at 10:00 p.m. while patient was riding bike and it skidded, would
gravely contradict manner of occurrence of accident as in police
investigation records. Despite said discrepancy, there was
absolutely no explanation for same by claimant. As per manner
of occurrence of accident mentioned in Ex.R1, when deceased
himself was riding motorcycle when it skidded and he fell down.
Therefore, claim petition was not by a third party contract of
insurance. Accident had occurred due to own negligence of
deceased.
11. Apart from above, Tribunal also noted corroborative
material to substantiate its finding about attempt by claimant to
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4767
HC-KAR
foist a false claim against insured vehicle, especially appreciating
fact that complaint was filed 19 days after incident.
12. Under above circumstances, finding of Tribunal by
reference to material on record and by assigning reasons, same
cannot be held to be perverse or capricious warranting
interference. Consequently, following:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
CLK, CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 15
