Dismissed¶66

Ningappa v. Shivappa

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2025MFA/2396/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ningappa v. Shivappa & Ors., MFA No.2396/2015 (MV-I), High Court of Karnataka (Umesh M Adiga J., 12.06.2025): claimant's appeal under S.173(1) MV Act against dismissal of tractor-accident injury claim dismissed; MLC extract and wound certificate (Exs.R.1, R.2) showed fall from tractor, contradicting the collision story; accident narrative held apparently fabricated with help of police and vehicle owner; impugned award of 16.08.2014 in MVC No.44/2011 confirmed; no compensation granted.

What did the court decide?

On the sole question whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident was not caused by the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver, the court's finding is in the negative (i.e., the Tribunal did not err). ¶44

Ningappa Vs Shivappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident had not taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver?

¶41

Ratio / Principle

¶44

Key takeaways

The court endorses the Tribunal's finding that the claimant did not sustain injuries in a vehicle accident but sustained injuries by a fall from a tractor, and finds no reason to interfere with that finding.ratio¶58
The court found that the earliest information given to the doctor (Exs.R.1 and R.2 recording a fall from the tractor) could not be overcome; it observed that the claimant appeared ill-advised and that the story of the accident by the tractor was fabricated with the active assistance of police and the owner of the vehicle, and that the appellant had not approached the Tribunal with clean hands.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles Act – S.173(1) appeal by injured claimant against dismissal of his claim petition (MVC No.44/2011, Senior Civil Judge & Member, Addl. MACT, Harihar) – claimant allegedly hit from behind by tractor KA-17-TB-1002 on 25.05.2010 while cycling – earliest hospital records of CG Hospital, Davanagere (Ex.R.1 MLC extract, Ex.R.2 wound certificate) recorded the history as having fallen from the tractor – FIR registered only later on the claimant's complaint, though a criminal case against the driver ended in a charge sheet – High Court holds the Tribunal rightly found that the claimant did not sustain injuries in a vehicle accident but by a fall from a tractor; observes that the claimant's story of a tractor accident appeared fabricated with the active assistance of police and the owner, and that the appellant did not approach the Tribunal with clean hands – point answered in the negative – appeal dismissed and the impugned judgment and award confirmed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20310 MFA No. 2396 of 2015

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2396 OF 2015 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NINGAPPA S/O. MUTTURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: NIL, RESIDENT OF BHANUVALLI-VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DIST.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. HEMANTH T.C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SHIVAPPA S/O HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, DRIVER OF TRACTOR BEARING REG.NO.KA-17-TB-1002, RESIDENT OF SHAMANUR-VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE-TQ: DISTRICT

¶14

K.H SURESH S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, MAJOR, OWNER OF TRACTOR BEARING REG.NO KA-17-TB-1002, RESIDENT OF SHAMANUR-VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE - TQ: DISTRICT

¶15

THE BRANCH MANAGER

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20310 MFA No. 2396 of 2015

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., H.M. GENEVA COMPLEX, 1^ST FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3; VIDE ORDER DATED 06.07.2021, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 IS DISPENSED WITH;

¶21

NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2 AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.08.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.44/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HARIHAR, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 16.08.2014, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Member, Additional MACT at Harihar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short), in MVC No.44/2011.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20310 MFA No. 2396 of 2015

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶30

referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶31

Brief facts of the case are that on 25.05.2010 at about 9.00 a.m., the petitioner was proceeding on his bicycle from Yaregunte towards Davanagere. He met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver, as a result claimant sustained grievous injuries. Initially, he was shifted to CG Hospital and for higher treatment, he was shifted to Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere, wherein he was admitted as inpatient from 25.05.2010 to 24.06.2010. For higher treatment, he was shifted to Kasturbha Hospital, Manipal, wherein he was admitted from 29.06.2010 to 10.07.2010, 23.09.2010 to 29.09.2010 and 14.12.2010 to 16.12.2010 and he had spent more than Rs.1,80,000/- towards medical expenses.

¶32

He further contended that he was a coolie and earned Rs.6,000/- per month. Due to injury sustained in the accident, he has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.5,15,000/-.

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20310 MFA No. 2396 of 2015

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Respondent No.1 is driver, respondent No.2 is owner and respondent No.3 is insurer of the offending tractor. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not appear and respondent No.3 appeared and denied the contentions of the claim petition and also denied its liability to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶36

The claimant to prove his case examined 2 witnesses as PWs.1 and 2 and marked 30 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.30. Respondents have examined 2 witnesses as RWs.1 and 2 and marked 4 documents as Exs.R.1 to R.4.

¶37

The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, dismissed the claim petition.

¶38

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶39

The following question that arises for determination

¶40

is:

¶41

"i). Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that accident had not taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver?."

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20310 MFA No. 2396 of 2015

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

My findings of the above point, is in the negative for the following:

¶45

Reasons:

¶46

PW-1 is the claimant, in his evidence, he stated that while he was riding a bicycle towards Kondajji when he met with an accident. The offending tractor came from behind and hit him. As a result of which, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He had seen the registration number of the tractor and enquired the name of the driver of the tractor. Thereafter, he was shifted to CG Hospital, Davanagere, in an autorickshaw. For higher treatment, he was shifted to Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere on 25.05.2010. He enquired with the member of the family and thereafter gave a complaint to the police station. He further narrated about the injuries sustained by him, the treatment taken in different hospitals and the amount spent towards medical expenses.

¶47

In his cross-examination by the respondents, he has stated that initially he went to CG Hospital, Davanagere, wherein he gave information regarding the history of the injuries. He denied the suggestion that he fell down from the tractor and sustained the injuries.

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20310 MFA No. 2396 of 2015

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

He examined PW-2, who had issued a disability certificate. PW-2 also stated about the injuries sustained by the claimant.

¶51

The respondents examined RW-1/

¶52

Smt.H.D.Neelambike, Medical Officer of CG Hospital, Davanagere, who had treated the victim on 25.05.2010 at CG Hospital, Davanagere. In her evidence, she has stated that on 25.05.2010 at about 10.00 a.m., the claimant came to her hospital for treatment, wherein he stated that "He fell down from the tractor". The said MLC Extract/Ex.R.1, Ex.R.2/wound certificate and feedback letter given by Bapuji Hospital are produced. It is also stated that the said history of injuries was mentioned on the basis of information given by the victim. In her cross-examination, nothing was brought out to disbelieve her evidence. Most of the questions asked to her were irrelevant.

¶53

RW-2 is a Manager of respondent No.2 and in her evidence she had stated that she collected materials from CG Hospital and produced at Exs.R.1 and R.2. Ex.R.1 reveals that "Road traffic accident, fallen from tractor in the morning at

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20310 MFA No. 2396 of 2015

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

9.00 a.m., on 25.05.2010 near on Kondajji road, RTO Office, Koddajji". It appears that the information regarding said accident was sent to the concerned police station, but they did not register FIR. Police registered FIR on receiving complaint from the claimant.

¶57

A Criminal case was registered against the driver of the tractor. It was investigated and charge sheet was filed. There was no material on record to overcome Exs.R.1 and R.2. It is the earliest information furnished to the concerned doctor by the claimant. It appears that the claimant was ill advised and thereafter the story of accident by the tractor was fabricated with active assistance of police and owner of the vehicle. If the concerned police had investigated the crime honestly, he could have secured Exs.R.1 and R.2 and the truth would have come out. The appellant had not approached the Tribunal with clean hands.

¶58

The Tribunal meticulously considered the materials on record and rightly held that the claimant had not sustained injuries in vehicle accident and on the contrary, he sustained injuries by fall from a tractor. Hence, I do not find any reason

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20310 MFA No. 2396 of 2015

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

to interfere in the said findings. Accordingly, I answer the

¶62

aforesaid point in the negative .

¶63

For the reasons discussed above, I pass the

¶64

following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i. The appeal is dismissed.

¶67

ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 16.08.2014, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT at Harihara, in MVC No.44/2011, is confirmed.

¶68

iii. Send back TCR with copy of judgment to the

¶69

trial Court.

¶70

(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶71

BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Ningappa v. Shivappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ningappa v. Shivappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joy @ Joseph Moben Vs Vasantha Suvarna

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri T Mudduraj

Sri. Vinaykumar Vs Lakshminarayana

Ravikiran.B Vs Mr. Srinivas v. Major

The Divisional Manager Vs Baby

Babu Vs Giriswamy M