##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:6238

MFA No. 102911 of 2014

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102911 OF 2014 (MV)

BETWEEN:

KUMAR PRADEEP S/O SURESH ALADAKATTI,

AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

REP. BY HIS UNCLE

JAGADISH BASAVANNEPPA ALADAKATTI,

AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI SM KALWAD, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)

AND:

1. SHANMUKAPPA MALLAPPA KUNDUR,

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER,

R/O: GUNDUR, TQ. HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI.

2. THE MANAGER,

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,

BRANCH OFFICE I BLOCK,

SRI KRISHNA AGENCY BUILDING,

P.B. ROAD, HAVERI.

…RESPONDENTS

CHANDRASHEKAR

LAXMAN

KATTIMANI (BY SMT.PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

DCKLKD+oA aHi a0g crtT 5Ai enat 3TN :taa 0Ii 2tl oMD a0y nR kA 2:s a AN 6Hi ,gS .I D0inH g 4he hE .d a2 K Cr 9b wA o y 1uR a5rd tL : 3 BA o 5efX :n2M c9hAN NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988,

AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.08.2014, PASSED IN

MVC.NO.155/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR

ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT HANGAL, DISMISSING THE

PETITION FILED UNDER SEC. 166 OF M.V. ACT.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:6238

MFA No. 102911 of 2014

HC-KAR

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 05.08.2014 passed

by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hangal, For short, ‘Tribunal’ in MVC

no.155/2009, this appeal filed.

2. Appeal is by unsuccessful claimant stating that at

10.00 a.m. on 05.12.2008 when claimant was going near Court

at Hangal, rider of motorcycle no.KA-27/R-658 rode it in rash

and negligent manner and dashed against claimant. In accident,

claimant sustained grievous injuries and despite treatment at

Government Hospital, Hangal, KIMS Hospital and Lifeline Hospital

at Hubballi, 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,

1923.

3. On contest, wherein claim petition was opposed on

all grounds, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence.

Claimant along with three others including Dr.Laxman Naik

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:6238

MFA No. 102911 of 2014

HC-KAR

deposed as PWs1 to PW4 and got marked documents at Exs.P1

to P14. On behalf of respondents, seven witnesses were

examined as RWs1 to RW7. Exs.R1 to R5 were marked.

4. On consideration, Tribunal held there was false

implication of insured vehicle for purpose of claim and as per

police investigation records at Exs.P1 to P6, accident had

occurred due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle. It is

stated that Tribunal erred in holding that claimant failed to

establish occurrence of accident at 10 a.m. i.e., due to

discrepancy of half an hour in mentioning time of occurrence of

accident. It was submitted small difference with regard to time of

accident would not be fatal. It is further contended that mere

delay in filing complaint cannot be sole reason for rejection of

claim.

5. On other hand, Smt.Preeti Shashank, learned counsel

for respondent no.2-insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted,

time of accident mentioned in Ex.P5-wound certificate and

Ex.R3-Medico Legal Case register was 10.15 a.m. Referring to

Ex.R4-Patient Admission Book submitted that claimant was

admitted to Government hospital at 9.30 a.m. and not 10.00

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:6238

MFA No. 102911 of 2014

HC-KAR

a.m., as stated by claimant. Besides, it was submitted that

complaint at Ex.P1 was filed twenty-three days after date of

accident. In view of same, Tribunal rightly dismissed claim

petition. On said ground sought dismissal of appeal.

6. Taking note of above, points that arise for

consideration are:

1) Whether dismissal of claim petition by

Tribunal was justified? and if not;

2) Compensation claimant would be entitled

for?

7. Point no.1: Perusal of impugned judgment and

award reveals that