Nabi Sab Hajaratsab Mulla Vs Girimalla Basappa Awati — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

Nabi Sab Hajaratsab Mulla Vs Girimalla Basappa Awati — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12907 MFA No. 20159 of 2013

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20159 OF 2013 (MV-)

BETWEEN:

NABI SAB HAJARATSAB MULLA

AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. AWARKHOD, NOW AT SHANTINAGAR, NEAR KALLYANI PLOT, ATHANI TQ: ATHANI DIST: BELGAUM

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. LOKESH MALAVALLI, ADV)

AND:

GIRIMALLA BASAPPA AWATI

AGE: MAJOR, R/O. DESAYARATTI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM.

THE MANAGER

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 1732, RAMADEVGALLI, BELGAUM.

…RESPONDENTS

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. K H BAGI, ADV FOR R1, SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADV FOR R2)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT,1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:07.11.2012, PASSED IN MVC. NO.486/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, ATHANI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.166 OF MV ACT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12907 MFA No. 20159 of 2013

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the petitioner challenging the dismissal of the claim petition vide judgment dated 07.11.2012 passed in MVC No.486/2010 by the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Athani (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

It is the case of the petitioner that on 04.01.2010 while he was waiting for the bus near the water tank situated at Athani-Harugeri road by talking to his brother—Aslam Mulla, at that time, the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-23/W-5783 ridden by Rahuf Ayaj Draxi came from Halyal side in a high speed, and in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner and as a result, he sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner filed a claim petition

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12907 MFA No. 20159 of 2013

HC-KAR

claiming compensation on the ground that he sustained injuries in the said road traffic accident.

Respondent No.1 filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that no such accident occurred on account of the fault of the rider of the offending motor cycle. The motor cycle has been falsely implicated to claim compensation and hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the rider of the motor cycle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.2.

The Tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties framed the relevant issues.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12907 MFA No. 20159 of 2013

HC-KAR

The petitioner to substantiate his case examined

himself as PW-1, examined one witness as PW-2 and

marked 17 documents and Ex.P-1 to P-17.

Respondent No.1 has not chosen to adduce any oral evidence. Respondent No.2 has not led any oral evidence but got marked one document as Ex.R-1 with consent.

The Tribunal after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence dismissed the claim petition vide judgment dated 07.11.2012.

The petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, has filed this appeal.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12907 MFA No. 20159 of 2013

HC-KAR

by the rider of the motor cycle in question and to prove the negligence, he has produced a copy of the charge sheet. The said aspect has not been properly considered by the Tribunal and committed an error in dismissing the claim petition. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents submits that no such accident was caused on the alleged date and no injuries have been sustained by the petitioner. It is contended that the injuries suffered by the petitioner is due to self-fall and not due to the accident as alleged.

He also submits that the evidence of the doctor was sufficient to hold that the injuries sustained by the petitioner is due to self-fall and not due to the accident as alleged by him. The Tribunal after

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12907 MFA No. 20159 of 2013

HC-KAR

considering the evidence of the doctor/PW-2 has rightly dismissed the claim petition. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the claim petition.

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

The point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is whether the petitioner proves that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is perverse and arbitrary.

The petitioner contended that he met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries and to prove that the petitioner met with an accident and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the offending motor cycle, he has produced a copy of the charge-sheet marked as Ex.P-9. However, the said fact has been seriously disputed by the respondents. The petitioner examined the doctor as PW-2, who has deposed that he has examined the

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12907 MFA No. 20159 of 2013

HC-KAR

petitioner clinically and radiologiclaly and issued the disability certificate marked as Ex.P-14. During the cross-examination, PW-2 has deposed that he has informed the Miraj Police regarding the petitioner being admitted to the hospital for treatment in respect of the injuries sustained by him in the alleged road traffic accident. Miraj Police, who were the proper authorities, to receiv ed the complaint from PW-1 have not come and recorded the statement of PW-1 and have obtained the complaint from PW-2 in that regard and further, he has deposed that he has intimated these facts to the Police on 04.01.2010.

Further, it is pertinent to note that the brother of the petitioner i.e., Aslam Mulla has also given his statement before the Police as per Ex.P-4 who was stated to be the person along with the petitioner at the time of accident, has also not lodged the complaint about the alleged injuries sustained by the petitioner in the alleged road traffic accident.

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12907 MFA No. 20159 of 2013

HC-KAR

Further, PW-2 himself was not certain regarding the petitioner having sustained injuries in the alleged accident. PW-2 has deposed that the petitioner has stated before him that he has fallen from the motor cycle. When the petitioner gave a statement before PW-2 that he has fallen from the motor cycle, the said admission itself is sufficient to hold that the petitioner has not sustained injuries due to the alleged road traffic accident. On the other hand, it is clear that he has sustained injuries in a self-fall from the motor cycle. The petitioner has failed to prove the accident on sufficient and cogent evidence. In the absence of such a proof, no compensation can be awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner sustained injuries in a self accident and he has taken treatment and made it to appear as the accident involving a motor cycle.

Considering the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the petitioner has failed to establish

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12907 MFA No. 20159 of 2013

HC-KAR

that he has sustained injuries in the alleged road traffic accident and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the motor cycle in question. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment and award.

In the result, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

(i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed .

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed.

(iii) The Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal forthwith.

Sd/(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE

RK CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4