IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9^TH 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 L K A A X T M TI A M N ANI THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO, JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.04.2015 IN MVC Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI L K o a c rn at a i t o a n k : a H , D ig h h a C rw ou a r d t of NO.457/2012 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND Bench Date: 2026.03.10 09:29:55 +0000 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

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 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 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