1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

MFA No.6873 OF 2016(MV)

BETWEEN:

SMT. VIJAYA HEGDE

W/O THIMANNA HEGDE

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

R/AT KOWLAKKI VILLAGE

HONNAVAR TALUK

UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADV. )

AND

1.

SMT. GEETHA HEGDE

W/O VENKATARAMANA HEGDE

SRI KUMAR ROAD LINES

BATKAL CIRCLE

HONNAVARA

UTTARAKANNADA DISRICT-581334

2.

UNITED INIDA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

BENNE COMPLEX,

GIBB HIGH SCHOOL ROAD

KUMTA,

UTTARAMANNADA DISRICT-581341

BY ITS MANAGER

2

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADV. FOR R1:

SRI. L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADV, FOR R2)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF

MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD

DATED:13.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO. 5173/2014

ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, MEMBER,

PRINCIPAL MACT, COURT OF COURT OF SMALL

CAUSES, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE PETITION AS

NOT MAINTAINBLE.

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH

VIDEO

CONFERENCE,

THIS

DAY,

THE

COURT

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’,

for short) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved

by the judgment dated 13.6.2016 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal.

2.

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 9.6.2014, the claimant was

traveling as a paid passenger from Honnavar, Uttar

Kannada District to Bangalore in bus KA-47-5821 near

3

Navarang Talkies on Dr.Rajkumar Road, the driver of

the said bus drove the same in rash and negligent

manner. As a result, the claimant fell down and

sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

3.

The claimant filed a petition under Section

166 of the Act seeking compensation. The Claims

Tribunal,

by

the

impugned

judgment,

inter

alia,

dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved, this

appeal has been filed.

4.

The learned counsel for the claimant has

contended that accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the bus by its driver. He contended

that the bus was traveling from Honnavar to Bangalore

and when the bus reached near Dr.Rajkumar Road, the

driver of the bus applied sudden break and due to the

impact, the claimant fell down on the floor of the bus

from the seat and she sustained injuries. Immediately

she was shifted to Suguna Hospital and thereafter to

4

Fortis hospital. The claimant has examined Dr.Hamsa as

PW-3

and

in

the

cross

examination,

PW-3

has

categorically stated the injuries were fresh in nature

when claimant came to their hospital. Immediately after

the accident, the hospital authority have intimated to

the police and police have filed FIR against the driver of

the bus and after thorough investigation have filed

charge sheet against the driver of the bus. The Tribunal

is not justified in holding that the claimant has failed to

prove that she has sustained injuries in the road traffic

accident due to rash and negligent driving of bus by its

driver. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.

5.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for

the Insurance Company has contended that the claimant

has not suffered any injury in the said road traffic

accident and she had back pain earlier and she made

false claim stating that she fell down in the bus due to

rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. Even

5

though the police have charge sheeted the driver of the

bus, he has been acquitted in the criminal case. He

further contended that the claimant has failed to prove

that she has suffered injury due to rash and negligent

driving of the bus when she was traveling in the said

bus. The Tribunal considering the materials available on

record has rightly rejected the claim petition. Hence, he

prays for dismissal of the petition.

6.

Heard the learned coun