Allowed

Mahaveer Bhujappa @ Bhujabali Nemagoudar v. G Shankar

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2025MFA/102433/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissal, holding the claimant established negligence via FIR and criminal conviction. Court awarded Rs.1,51,380 (including future loss and medical expenses) plus 6% interest against the truck owner and insurer.

What did the court decide?

Allowed appeal, set aside impugned judgment, awarded compensation of Rs.1,51,380 plus 6% interest to be deposited by respondents jointly and severally.

Mahaveer Bhujappa @ Bhujabali Nemagoudar Vs G Shankar — Money Laundering | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105 MFA No. 102433 of 2014

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI M.F.A. NO.102433 OF 2014 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI MAHAVEER BHUJAPPA @ BHUJABALI NEMAGOUDAR, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, (NOW NIL), R/O. JUNJARWAD, TAL: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶12

SHRI G. SHANKAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. CLASS-I, PWD CONTRACTOR, "SHAMLI", AMBALPADY, UDUPI-TQ, (OWNER OF TIPPER TRUCK NO.KA-20/B-6404).

¶13

THE MANAGER, UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REGD. OFFICE-201, 208, CRYSTAL PLAZA, OPP. INFINITI MALL, LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (WEST), MUMBAI-58.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADV. FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)

¶15

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.03.2014 IN MVC NO.1012/2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105 MFA No. 102433 of 2014

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

JUDGE AND MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATHANI, IN DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION BE KINDLY SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.7,50,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 18% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION, TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT BY HOLDING RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 HEREIN JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE TO PAY THE COMPENSATION, WITH COST THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶20

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 25.10.2025, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

CAV JUDGMENT

¶22

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)

¶23

The Claimant in MVC No.1012/2010 on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Athani (herein after referred as the ‘tribunal’) has come up with this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 05.03.2014 passed therein, dismissing the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.

¶24

The parties to this appeal are referred to their original ranking before the tribunal.

¶25

The Claimant has maintained the petition in MVC No.1012/2010 under Section 166 of M.V.Act praying for compensation of Rs.7,50,000/on the ground that on

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105 MFA No. 102433 of 2014

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

06.01.2010 at about 6.00 p.m., when he was returning to the village on his motor cycle bearing No.KA-23-U-7531, on Sutatti

¶29

Junjarwad Road, near the house of one Ramagouda Parappa Nemagoudar, a tipper truck bearing No. KA-20-B-6404 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motorcycle, due to which he suffered injuries mentioned at Column No.11 of the claim petition and thereby suffered mentally, physically and financially. He has maintained this petition against the owner and the insurer of tipper truck bearing No. KA-20-B-6404.

¶30

On service of the notice of the petition, the Insurer appeared before the tribunal through their counsel and contested the petition by filing the written statement. Whereas, as the owner remained absent before the tribunal, he was placed exparte.

¶31

The tribunal, after contest, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the Claimant has failed to prove having sustained injuries in a road traffic accident involving tipper truck bearing No.KA-20-B-6404 and account of actionable negligence on the part of its driver. The tribunal came to such conclusion on the ground that the damages on the vehicle mentioned in IMV

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105 MFA No. 102433 of 2014

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

report marked at Ex.P6 does not correspond with the version of the complaint marked at Ex.P1 and that the Claimant has not produced the vehicle seizure panchanama in order to substantiate involvement of two vehicles. The tribunal disbelieved the case of the Claimant even on the ground that the sketch produced at Ex.P4 goes to show that the accident in question has not taken place in the place as contended by the Claimant and that the Claimant did not choose to examine the complainant/informant, who lodged the complaint in connection with the accident in question. Further, the tribunal relied on the contents of Ex.P8 i.e. discharge summary wherein history of injury is mentioned as ‘RTA-fall’. Accordingly, the tribunal proceeded to hold that the Claimant has failed to establish the alleged accident in question with cogent evidence and that an accident occurred due to self fall has been given a turn to claim compensation by creating false documents.

¶36

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Claimant has come up with this appeal on the ground that the tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition, by not properly considering the materials placed on record and that the reasoning of the tribunal is not sound. During the course of

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105 MFA No. 102433 of 2014

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

argument, learned Counsel for the Claimant relied on decisions in Mangla Ram Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others., and others reported in (2018) 5 SCC 656 and Akhil Hrishikesh Sharma Vs Suresh S. Rachannavar and Another , reported in 2022 (1) Kar.L.J 477(D) and submitted that the impugned judgment is contrary to the legal principles enunciated in these decisions and liable to be set aside.

¶40

Per contra, learned Counsel for Insurer supported the findings recorded by the tribunal and submitted that the delay in filing the complaint, the discrepancies emanating from the documents available in record and the contents of the discharge summary marked at Ex.P.8 clearly go to show that the Claimant did not met with a road traffic accident as contended by him and on account of involvement of tipper truck bearing No. KA-20-B6404 in the said incident.

¶41

The following points that would arise for consideration are:

¶42

i) Whether the tribunal is justified in holding that the Claimant has failed to prove having sustained personal injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 06.01.2010 at about 6.00 p.m., on account of

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105 MFA No. 102433 of 2014

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

actionable negligence of the driver of tipper truck bearing No. KA-20-B-6404?

¶47

ii) If no, what is the just compensation payable to the Claimant?

¶48

Point No.1: Before proceeding further, it would be useful

¶49

to refer to the law on the point of appreciation of pleading and evidence in the event of dispute regarding the accident or involvement of the vehicle/s. In Mangla Ram ’s case referred supra, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, after referring to several decisions rendered in Bhimladevi Vs Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530, Parmashwari Vs Ameerchand (2011) 11 SCC 635, N.K.V.Bros.(P)Ltd., Vs M.Karumai Ammal (1980) 3 SCC 457, Dulcina Farnandes Vs Joaquim Xavier Cruz (2013) 10 SCC 646 and such other cases, restated the legal position that the Claimant were mere to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and that standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied by the tribunal while dealing with motor accidental cases.

¶50

In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated that the tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105 MFA No. 102433 of 2014

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. It is held that save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable and the tribunal should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes.

¶54

Coming to the case on hand, it is the case of the Claimant that on 06.01.2010 when he was returning from Junjarwad to his house on his motorcycle bearing No. KA-23-U7531, by observing all the traffic rules, at about 6:00 p.m., near the house of one Ramagouda Parppa Nemagoudar, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the tipper truck bearing No. KA-20-B-6404, who came from behind and dashed against his motor cycle. It is further case of the Claimant that the drive of tipper truck in question had suddenly lost control over his vehicle and dashed his vehicle to the motor cycle of the Claimant. It is stated that after hitting against the motor cycle, the tipper truck went a little ahead and turned turtle in the road side ditch.

¶55

During his evidence, the Claimant has reiterated the averments of the claim petition and produced relevant documents before the tribunal in support of his contention. The

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105 MFA No. 102433 of 2014

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Claimant has produced the complaint at Ex.P1, FIR at Ex.P2, Spot sketch at Ex.P4, wound certificate at Ex.P5, Motor Vehicles Accident Report at Ex.P6, the Charge sheet at Ex.P7 and order sheet in CC No.223/2010 at Ex.P42. These documents go to show that one Sri Ramagonda Parappa Nemagoudar had lodged a complaint with Aigali Police Station in connection with the accident in question, based on which the jurisdictional police took up investigation and laid a charge sheet against the driver of the tipper truck bearing No.KA-20-B-6404 for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC and Section 134 read with Section 187 of MV Act. The jurisdictional magistrate took cognizance of alleged offences and registered a case in CC No.223/2010, wherein the driver of the offending vehicle appeared before concerned court on 27.05.2010 and pleaded his guilt. Accordingly, he was convicted for the alleged offences and sentenced to pay fine, which was duly deposited by the driver of the offending vehicle. Based on these materials available on record, it is be held that the Claimant has adduced sufficient evidence before the tribunal to discharge the initial burden on him of proving the accident as well as actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶60

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105 MFA No. 102433 of 2014

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

Learned Counsel for Insurer has tried to dispute sufficiency of the evidence adduced by the Claimant in this regard by relying on the findings recorded by the tribunal pertaining to this aspect. This Court of the considered view that such a contention of the Insurer cannot be entertained at all. It is because in para 12 of the written statement, the Insurer has specifically contended that the Claimant himself drove his motorcycle in a zigzag manner and abruptly took the vehicle on the road and that due to his sole negligence, alleged accident occurred. Further, during the cross-examination of the Claimant a suggestion has been made to the Claimant on behalf of the Insurer that while riding the motorcycle the Claimant suddenly came on right side of the road and that in an attempt to avoid the accident made by the truck driver, the truck got toppled. Thereby the Insurer has admitted presence of both vehicles in question at the place and at relevant point of time. It is also relevant to note that the Insurer has not chosen to examine the driver of the offending vehicle or any other person having information about the incident, either to dispute the accident or actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶63

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105 MFA No. 102433 of 2014

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

The Claimant has produced a discharge summary pertaining to his treatment at Radheshyam Accident and Orthopedic Hospital and Dental Clinic, Athani. This document contains a mention about history of injury as “RTA-Fall”. In the considered view of this Court the above mention is not sufficient to disbelieve the case of the Claimant regarding his having suffered personal injuries on account of a road traffic accident. It is because none of other documents placed before the tribunal probabilises the said entry. Even the Insurer has not made any effort to summon the relevant documents such as case sheet, etc., from concerned hospital to show that the Claimant had not suffered the injuries in a road traffic accident as claimed by him.

¶66

During the course of argument, learned Counsel for Insurer drew the attention of this Court to the aspect of delay in lodging the complaint and tried to contend that such delay gives an impression of planting of an insured vehicle to claim the compensation. First of all, the Insurer could not have raised this contention having admitted the accident. Even otherwise, on appreciating the materials placed before the tribunal, this Court does not find any reason to accept the above contention of the Insurer. It is because in the complaint the informant has

¶67

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105 MFA No. 102433 of 2014

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

specifically stated the reason for delay. According to the informant as he was busy in providing treatment to the injured/Claimant, there was delay in lodging the complaint. The contents of the FIR marked at Ex.P2 indicate that the place of accident was at a distance of about 20 kms from Aigali Police Station, wherein the complaint was lodged. The Wound Certificate marked at Ex.P5 and other medical records produced before the tribunal go to show that the Claimant had suffered fracture on his left lower limb and that the Claimant had been taken to Athani for treatment. Further, it is not the case of the Insured that these places were at reasonable distance so that the informant could lodge the complaint on the same day.

¶70

It is also relevant to note that the Insurer has examined its Relationship Manager namely Shri Bhimashankar as RW-1 in the case. During his cross-examination, RW-1 has categorically stated that they had obtained a report from their Internal Investigating Officer in connection with the accident in question. However, Respondent No.2 has neither chosen to produce the said report before the tribunal nor disclosed its contents for the consideration of the tribunal. As such this Court opines that an adverse inference has to be drawn against the

¶71

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105 MFA No. 102433 of 2014

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

Insurer for having withheld such information from the Tribunal. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the Tribunal is not justified in disbelieving the case of the Claimant and in holding that he has failed to prove the accident in question. Hence, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.

¶74

Point No.2 : The impugned judgment and award goes to show that though the Tribunal framed four issues for its consideration, after answering Issue Nos.1 and 2, it proceeded to hold that Issue No.3 pertaining to quantum of compensation does not survive for consideration and dismissed the claim petition. The materials on record indicate that there are sufficient evidence on record even to decide the quantum of compensation in the case.

¶75

In a similar case, Akhil Rishikesh Sharma Vs Suresh S. Rachannnavar and Another , reported in 2022 (1)

¶76

KLJ 477 , the Division Bench of this Court has held that no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter for the purpose of determining the quantum of compensation, particularly when sufficient material evidence is already available on record. As such, this Court deems it appropriate to determine the case finally by proceeding to determine the quantum of

¶77

13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105 MFA No. 102433 of 2014

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

compensation payable to the Claimant, without relegating the parties to the Tribunal for decision on the said aspect.

¶80

Further, in Kajal Vs Jagdish Chand and others reported in AIR 2020 SC 776 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the principles for awarding just compensation for loss of earning, medical expenses, transportation, special diet, attendant charges, loss or diminution the pleasures of life by loss of a particular part of body, loss of future earning capacity. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles, this Court proceeds to assess the compensation.

¶81

The materials on record such as Wound Certificate marked at Ex.P 5 and Discharge Summary marked at Ex.P.8 go to show that the Claimant had suffered fracture of the tibia and fibula on the lower one-third of the left side apart from other simple injuries such as CLW on skull and abrasions. Further, the medical records indicate that the Claimant has undergone treatment for the said injuries as an in-patient from 06.01.2010 to 19.01.2010. During the said period he was treated with interlocking-nailing for the fracture of tibia. If we take into consideration nature of injuries suffered by the Claimant, in all probability he needed further treatment for sometime and

¶82

14 -

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105 MFA No. 102433 of 2014

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

reasonable period for healing up and recovery. Further, the Claimant has produced some bills/receipts for having spent a sum of Rs.34,000/- towards hospital expenses and medicines.

¶86

Added to the above, the Claimant has contended that prior to the accident he was earning Rs.2,50,000/- per annum by doing agriculture and that due to the injuries sustained in the accident he is not in a position to do any work and thereby lost his earning capacity. First of all the Claimant has not adduced sufficient evidence before the tribunal to prove his actual income at the relevant point of time except producing some RORs standing in his name. As such in the absence of acceptable evidence to prove actual income of the Claimant, this Court relies on notional income chart prepared by the KSLSA, wherein notional income during the year-2010 is shown as Rs.5,500/- per month.

¶87

The witness examined on behalf of the Claimant in this regard i.e., PW-2, Dr. Anand Pandurang Kulkarni, in his evidence has stated that the Claimant has got 12% permanent disability for whole limb and 1/3^rd of it i.e., 4% permanent disability to the body. The Claimant has not produced any reliable document before the tribunal to prove his actual age at

¶88

15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105 MFA No. 102433 of 2014

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

the relevant point of time. In the Wound Certificate marked at Ex.P5 the age of the Claimant is shown as 26 years. Whereas, in the x-ray sheets one can find mentioning of his age as 26 years/28 years. The driving license produced at Ex.P35 is not the original or a certified copy. Further, one can find some interpolation by modifying the year of the birth. In view of the same, it would be proper to presume the age of the Claimant as between 26–30 years at the time of accident. Thus, the loss of future income to the Claimant on account of permanent disability suffered due to accidental injuries works out to ₹44,880/(₹5,500/- X 12 X 17 X 4%).

¶91

For the foregoing reasons, it is held that the Claimant

¶92

is entitled for the compensation under the following heads:

¶93

Head of Compensation	Amount (₹)
Pain and Suffering	30,000/-
Medical Expenses & Incidental Charges	50,000/-
Loss of Income during Treatment (Rs.5,500/- X 3)	16,500/-
Loss of Future Income	44,880/-
Loss of Amenities	10,000/-
Total	1,51,380/-

¶94

16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105 MFA No. 102433 of 2014

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

The Claimant is entitled for total compensation of ₹1,51,380/(Rupees One Lakh Fifty One Thousand Three Hundred Eighty) only together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶97

Learned Counsel for the Insurer has vehemently submitted that the case put forth by the Claimant gives an impression that in the normal course the accident could not have occurred in the absence of contributory negligence on the part of the Claimant and as such prayed to take note of the same while determining the question of the liability to pay the compensation. It is true that in their written statement the Insurer has contended about sole responsibility of the Claimant for the accident in question. However, they have failed to substantiate the said contention by adducing cogent evidence. As such this Court does not find any merit in the above contention of the Insurer.

¶98

The Insurer has produced a true copy of the Cover Note at Ex.R1. This document goes to show that the offending vehicle had a valid and effective insurance policy issued by the Insurer, as on the date of the accident. They have further

¶99

17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105 MFA No. 102433 of 2014

¶100

HC-KAR

¶101

contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license at the time of the accident and that there was no valid permit or fitness certificate for the said vehicle. The Insurer has not adduced any evidence before the Tribunal to substantiate these contentions. In view of the same, it is to be held that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and the insurer respectively of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Claimant as determined by the Court.

¶102

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶103

following:

¶104

ORDER

¶105

I. The appeal is allowed .

¶106

II. The judgment and award dated 05.03.2014 in MVC No.1012/2010 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge & AMACT, Athani is set aside.

¶107

III. The claim petition is allowed in part.

¶108

The Claimant is entitled to ₹1,51,380/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty-One Thousand Three Hundred Eighty) Only with

¶109

18 -

¶110

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15105 MFA No. 102433 of 2014

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

interest thereon at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

¶113

IV. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount, which shall be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of two months from this day.

¶114

V. On such deposit, the Claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount.

¶115

VI. Draw an award accordingly.

¶116

Sd/(B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE

¶117

VB /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Mahaveer Bhujappa @ Bhujabali Nemagoudar v. G Shankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahaveer Bhujappa @ Bhujabali Nemagoudar v. G Shankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mallikarjun S/O Basappa Chachadi Vs the Managing Director

The National Insurance Co.,Ltd., Vs Digambar S/O Nagesh Navagi

Vishwa S/O. Shivanand Bellary Vs the Branch Manager

Veeresh S/O Shankarappa Jivanagi Vs Muttanna Nirunnappa Biradar

Arun S/O Gopal Chavan Vs Muttanna Nirunnappa Biradar

M Swamy S/O Manjappa C Vs Depot Manager