IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

MFA NO.22940/2011 (MV)

BETWEEN:

KUMARI.SHREYA D/O RUDRAGOUDA PATIL,

AGE: 9 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REP.BY HER M/G FATHER,

RUDRAGOUDA S/O DUNDANAGAOUDA PATIL,

AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: MEDICAL PRACTICE.

R/O GOKAK-591312, DIST: BELGAUM.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI.RAVI S.BALAKAI, ADV.)

AND:

1.

SHRI.VENKATESH APPASAHEB GULAGAJAMBAGI,

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,

R/O NEAR L.S.M.P.SOCIETY,

MUDALAGI-591 343, TAL: GOKAK, DIS: BELGAUM.

2.

THE MANAGER,

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL COMPANY LTD.,

2^ND FLOOR, BILAGI PLAZA, COLLEGE ROAD,

BELGAUM-590 002.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADV. FOR R2,

R1 SERVED)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF

M.V.ACT SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD

DATED 20.09.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.957/2008 ON THE FILE

OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. MACT, GOKAK

AND ALLOW THE SAID CLAIM PETITION FILED BY THE

APPELLANT AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION.

2

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT ON 06.08.2021 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT

OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant against the

dismissal of the claim petition dated 20.09.2010 passed in

MVC No.957/2008 on the file of the II Additional Senior

Civil Judge & Additional MACT, Gokak (hereinafter referred

to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) whereby the Tribunal has

dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the

claimant has failed to prove that the vehicle was involved

in the accident and the vehicle was planted.

2.

The factual matrix leading to the case are that,

on 12.10.2007 at about 9.00 p.m., the claimant was

walking towards her house on the left side of the road

along with one Geeta Angadi. When they came near Basav

Nagar in front of Padagatti, a motorcycle bearing

Reg.No.KA-49/E-2859 came from opposite direction in

high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the

claimant resulting in the accident. It is also alleged that

the claimant has suffered fracture of lower end femur left

3

thigh, cut lacerated wound over chin and lower lip, cut

lacerated wound over inner aspect of the lower lip, fracture

of mandible injuries. Immediately after the accident, the

claimant was shifted to Ganga Surgical and Fracture Clinic,

Gokak, wherein she was admitted as an inpatient for two

days. Later on, she was shifted to KLE Hospital, Belagavi

wherein she was an inpatient for one month. Even after

discharge, she took follow-up treatment and it is alleged

that minor guardian of claimant has spent more than

Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.10,000/-

towards attendant charges including conveyance and

special diet and the claimant requires medical expenses for

removal of implants. It is alleged that the claimant was

aged about six years and she had better academic year.

Hence, the claim petition was filed claiming compensation

of Rs.5,00,000/- under various heads.

3.

Respondent No.1 who was the owner of the

vehicle has contested the claim denying the allegations

and assertions made in the claim petition. But however, it

4

is claimed that accident has occurred due to rash and

negligent act on the part of the victim-claimant. The rider

of the motorcycle was having valid driving licence and the

vehicle is duly insured with respondent No.2. Hence, he

sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against him.

4.

Respondent No.2 has also taken all the

defences available under the Act and denied the accident

including the injuries and liability as well as rider of the

motorcycle holding valid driving licence. Without prejudice

to the said contentions, it is also contended that records

disclose that the vehicle was not at all involved in the

accident, as it was a hit and run case and the vehicle was

subsequently implante