Karnataka High Court
Gangappa Yashwant Melinamani vs Ulrich De.Eblchior on 30 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9746
MFA No. 24141 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24141 OF 2013 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. GANGAPPA YASHWANT MELINAMANI
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: MANSON NOW NIL,
R/O. KAKATI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADV)
AND:
1. SHRI. ULRICH DE. BELCHIOR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. 88/10 CASA BELCHIOR
KHORLIM MAPUSA BARDEZ GOA-403507.
2. THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.
BRACH OFFICE, 3C D, SESA GHAR
PATTO PLAZA, PANAJI, GOA
R/BY ITS D.O. OFFICE, AT: MADIWALE
COMPLEX CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI.
Digitally signed
...RESPONDENTS
by
MOHANKUMAR
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
B SHELAR
Date:
(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV FOR R2,
2025.08.16
12:18:31 +0530 NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST JUDGMENT
& AWARD DTD:24.07.2013, PASSED IN MVC. NO.1777/2011 ON THE
FILE OF THE FAST TRACK COURT-II AND MACT, BELAGAVI, PARTLY
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9746
MFA No. 24141 of 2013
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
1. This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 24.07.2013 passed in MVC No.1777 of 2011 by the learned Fast Track Court-II and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi (for short, 'the Tribunal').
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
3. The claimant met with an accident on 02.07.2011 after getting down from a 407 vehicle, due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car bearing registration No.GA-01/R-6179. In the said accident, he had sustained grievous, multiple fracture injuries and he was operated and treated in Lakeview Hospital, Belagavi. He spent a huge sum of money towards medical expenses and there is physical disability as well. He filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9746 MFA No. 24141 of 2013 HC-KAR account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.
4. Notice was issued to respondent No.1-- the owner of the offending car. Despite service of notice, respondent No.1 remained unrepresented and was placed ex parte.
5. Respondent No.2--insurer of the car, filed a statement of objections denying all the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that after the investigation, the Police filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the 407 vehicle and hence, the claim petition against the owner and the insurer of the car is not maintainable, and there is a delay in lodging the complaint.
6. It is contended that the charge-sheet is filed against the driver of the 407 vehicle and the claimant has not challenged the same and no complaint was given against the car driver/owner. There is no fault or -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9746 MFA No. 24141 of 2013 HC-KAR negligence on the part of the driver of the car bearing registration No.GA-01/R-6179. Hence, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.2.
7. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties framed relevant issues.
8. The claimant to substantiate his claim petition averments examined himself as PW-1, examined the doctor, who issued the Disability Certificate to him as PW-2 and marked 9 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-9.
9. In rebuttal, a doctor of Lakeview hospital was examined as RW-1 and the insurance company examined its Legal manager as RW-2 and marked 4 documents as Exhibits R1 to R4.
10. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition vide judgment dated 24.07.2013.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9746 MFA No. 24141 of 2013 HC-KAR
11. The claimant, aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, filed this appeal.
12. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the claimant and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
13. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Tribunal has not considered the documents and evidence placed on record regarding the case of the claimant. The impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is without application of mind and she submits that the claimant has clearly stated in the claim petition that the accident occurred due to the collision of the 407 vehicle with the car bearing registration No.GA-01/R-6179 and the claimant sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. She also submits that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the contents of Ex.P- 2/complaint, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the claimant after getting down from a 407 vehicle, was going on foot. The 407 vehicle collided -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9746 MFA No. 24141 of 2013 HC-KAR with the car in question and the car dashed to the claimant, on account of the impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The Tribunal should have allowed the claim petition. However, on the contrary, it dismissed the claim petition and hence on these grounds, she prays to allow the appeal.
14. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that, the car was not involved in the accident and no charge-sheet is filed against the driver/owner of the car. He submits that the car was insured with respondent No.2, but no complaint was lodged against the driver of the car. He also submits that a "C" Report was filed by the police on the ground that the driver of the 407 vehicle has not been traced and the case was closed. He submits that the claimant has not challenged this 'C' Report. Hence, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the car. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9746 MFA No. 24141 of 2013 HC-KAR
15. He submits that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
16. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
17. The point that arises for consideration is regarding the liability.
18. The claimant, to prove his case, examined himself as PW-1. He reiterated the claim petition averments in the examination-in-chief and to prove that the accident occurred, he has produced the certified copy of the FIR marked as Ex.P-1; Ex.P-2 is the certified copy of the complaint; Ex.P-3 is the spot panchanama with sketch; Ex.P-4 is the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report; Ex.P-5 is the 'C' Report filed by the police; Ex.P-6 is the wound certificate; Ex.P-7 is the Disability Certificate; Ex.P-8 is the X-ray report and Ex.P-9 is the X-ray film. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9746 MFA No. 24141 of 2013 HC-KAR
19. The claimant also examined the doctor, who has issued the disability certificate to him as PW-2, to prove the disability.
20. In rebuttal, the officer of the insurer of the car was examined as RW2. He denied the involvement of the car in the road traffic accident. He has deposed that the complaint was lodged against the 407 vehicle, but not against the car in question. The police have investigated and submitted a 'C' report. Based on the complaint submitted by the complainant, an FIR was filed in Crime No.162 of 2011. From the perusal of Ex.P-5/'C' report, it discloses that the police have filed a 'C' report stating that the driver of the 407 vehicle has not been traced and the particulars of the owner, insurer or driver of the 407 vehicle are not traceable.
21. From the perusal of the FIR, complaint, and charge-
sheet, it discloses that the offending vehicle was the 407 vehicle.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9746 MFA No. 24141 of 2013 HC-KAR
22. At the cost of repetition, it has to be stated here that no complaint is filed against the driver of the car bearing registration No.GA-01/R-6179. The claimant did not challenge the complaint, charge-sheet or Ex.P- 5/'C' report. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, has held that the claimant ought to have impleaded the owner and insurer of the 407 vehicle.
23. Further, to fortify its view, the Tribunal placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the case of H.S.Swarnalatha and others vs. Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, KSRTC, reported in 2011 ACJ 990 (Kar) and also in the case of KSRTC by its Managing Director vs. Arun @ Aravind and others, reported in ILR 2004 Kar 27.
24. The claimant had to prove that there was a collision between the car bearing Registered No. GA-01/R-6179 and 407 vehicle. But he has failed to establish that the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9746 MFA No. 24141 of 2013 HC-KAR accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said car.
25. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition. Hence, I do not find any error in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
26. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.1777/2011, is hereby confirmed.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT: BSB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6