##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4429 MFA No. 102888 of 2015

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102888 OF 2015 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SOU. SUPRIYA SUNILA SHINDE AGE: 28 YEARS,

OCC: TAILORING & HOUSEHOLD (NOW NIL), R/O: ANAGOL, BELAGAVI.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MR. SUNIL BHARAMA SHINDE AGE: MAJOR, OCC: SERVICE,

R/O: TANAJI GALLI, AT: NILAJI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: BELAGAVI.

2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY, CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI

CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI.

DCLAHig XAit MNal ADy NR s AK igSA nHT eET dKI M bAy ARNI LKD+ oaa0 crt5ena 3: ta 0 i 2toa0 nk2 :a 6 H, .D0 ig 3hh .a2 Cr7wo 1 ua0 rdt : 3 Bo 3ef :n0c4h …RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADV. FOR R2;

NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.667/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, BELAGAVI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER

SECTION 166 OF MV ACT & ETC.

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4429 MFA No. 102888 of 2015

HC-KAR

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 19.06.2015 passed

by VI Additional District & Sessions Judge & Additional MACT, Belagavi, (‘Tribunal’ for short) in MVC no.667/2013, this appeal

is filed.

2. Sri Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel submitted, appeal

was by claimant challenging dismissal of claim petition. It was submitted, on 08.12.2012, when claimant-petitioner was pillion rider on motorcycle no.KA-22/EC-155 on Belagavi-Goa road, her husband (rider) rode it in rash and negligent manner and near Jamboti village, lost control, due to which it skidded. Petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. Even after treatment, she sustained loss of earning capacity and filed claim petition against owner and insurer of motorcycle under Section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’ for short).

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4429 MFA No. 102888 of 2015

HC-KAR

3. Despite service of notice, owner did not appear and

was placed ex parte. Only insurer opposed claim petition on all counts. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and recorded

evidence.

4. Claimant along with Dr.AB Patil and another deposed

as PWs.1 to PW.3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. Insurer

examined its official as RW1 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2. 5. On consideration, Tribunal dismissed claim petition

on ground that claimant had failed to file FIR immediately after accident and thereby failed to establish actionable negligence against owner and insurer of motorcycle. Aggrieved, present

appeal was filed.

6. It was submitted, while there was no dispute about

proposition that burden would lie on claimant to establish that she sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent riding/driving of motor vehicle by its rider/driver and it would suffice for claimant to rely on police investigation records to prima facie establish said aspect, it would be stretching

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4429 MFA No. 102888 of 2015

HC-KAR

proposition too far to contend that without police complaint, claim petition would not be tenable. It was admitted, in order to establish actionable negligence against rider of offending motorcycle, claimant not only pleaded occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by its rider, but also reiterated same in deposition. In cross-examination, suggestions made, admit occurrence of accident involving insured vehicle. Though a suggestion is made that claimant sustained injuries due to fall in kitchen, there is absolutely no material to support same. In fact, same is not even supported by insurer’s own

pleading.

7. On other hand, during cross-examination of RW1, it

is elicited that insurance policy was in force as on date of accident