Karnataka High Court
Master Manoj Brahmraj Kunachi vs Mahesh on 8 April, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5205
MFA No. 102373 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102373/2015 (MV)
BETWEEN:
MASTER MANOJ BRAHMRAJ KUNACHI,
AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
REPT. BY HIS NATURAL M/G MOTHER,
SMT.TANUJA BRAHMARAJ KUNACHI,
R/O: 2135, KORE GALLI, SHAHAPUR,
BELAGAVI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MAHESH SANGAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO.2035, KORE GALLI,
SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI,
TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
KATTIMANI
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI,
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.04.09 10:09:33
+0100 TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.ANUSHA SANGAMI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SK KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VC);
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.06.2015 PASSED IN
MVC NO.1340/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-V,
BELAGAVI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 166 OF
MV ACT & ETC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5205
MFA No. 102373 of 2015
HC-KAR
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 11.06.2015 passed by IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member MACT- V, Belagavi, ('Tribunal' for short), in MVC no.1340/2013, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Harish S.Maigur, learned counsel for appellant submitted, appeal was by claimant challenging dismissal of claim petition and for assessment of compensation. It was submitted that at 4.30 p.m., on 17.12.2011, when Kumar Manoj Brahmraj Kunachi was returning from school, rider of motorcycle no.KA- 22/EG-1890, rode it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against claimant from hind side. Due to which, claimant fell on road and sustained multiple injuries to his face and teeth. Immediately after accident, he was taken to Preeti Specialty Dental Clinic, Belagavi, where he spent ₹15,000/- towards treatment. Despite same, he did not recover fully and sustained loss of earning capacity. Therefore he filed claim petition against -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5205 MFA No. 102373 of 2015 HC-KAR owner and insurer of motorcycle under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act').
3. On service of summons, owner and insurer appeared and filed objections. Both denied accident having taken place on 17.12.2011. They contented, there was delay of 6 months in lodging complaint and private complaint was filed only for purpose of claiming compensation. Insurer also contended, its liability was subject to compliance with terms and conditions of policy and rider having valid driving licence as on date of accident.
4. Based on pleadings Tribunal framed following issues.
1. Whether the guardian of the minor petitioner proves that her minor son Manoj has sustained bodily injuries in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17.12.2011 at 16.30 hours on Shahapur Belgaum road in front of Jigajinni house within the limits of Traffic North Police Station Belgaum on account of rash and negligent riding of motor bike bearing registration No.KA-22/EG-1890 by its rider?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?
If so, what is the quantum and from whom?
3. What order or award?
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5205 MFA No. 102373 of 2015 HC-KAR
5. Thereafter Tribunal recorded evidence, wherein claimant along with Dr. BS Bagi deposed as PWs1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16. Insurer examined its official as RW1 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2.
6. On consideration, Tribunal held, claimant failed to establish occurrence of accident was due to fault of rider of alleged motorcycle and accordingly dismissed claim petition. Aggrieved, appeal was filed. It was submitted, in order to establish actionable negligence, claimant relied on police investigation records namely private complaint, FIR, spot panchanama, spot map, vehicle seizure measure, motor vehicle inspection report, statements of petitioner and charge sheet marked as Exs.P1 to P9. Claimant also relied upon certified copy of order sheet in CC no.970/2012 as Ex.P12.
7. It was submitted, though complaint filed was as a private complaint, police had registered FIR, investigated matter and filed charge sheet against rider of motorcycle, who had pleaded guilty and paid fine. Same would substantiate involvement of vehicle and occurrence of accident as alleged. It was submitted, even mother of claimant deposed and nothing -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5205 MFA No. 102373 of 2015 HC-KAR material elicited in her cross-examination. In view of above, it was submitted, dismissal of claim petition would be contrary to material on record and calling for interference.
8. On quantum, it was submitted, claimant was 7 year old, student, who had lost Avulsion and subluxation of teeth no.11, 21 and 22 which had shifted, mal-positioned and dead, resulting in loss of chewing power and consequent loss of earning capacity. It was submitted PW2, who had examined claimant had assessed disability of 22% to affected part and 7% to whole body. Therefore, Tribunal ought to have assessed compensation by referring to a structured formula evolved in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd. and Anr., reported in AIR 2014 SC 736. Failure by Tribunal warranted interference. On above ground sought for allowing appeal.
9. On other hand, Smt.Anusha Sangami, advocate appearing for Sri SK Kayakamath, learned counsel for respondent - insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted that admittedly even a private complaint herein was filed nearly six months after alleged accident. It was stated that insurer was not -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5205 MFA No. 102373 of 2015 HC-KAR informed about accident even by insured. Despite rider of motorcycle pleading guilty, same cannot by itself held to establish accident involving insured vehicle. It was submitted, Tribunal had assessed entire material on record in proper perspective and rightly dismissed petition and there was no justification for warranting interference.
10. Respondent no.2 - owner served and remained unrepresented.
11. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment, award and record.
12. From above, following points arise for consideration. i. Whether dismissal of claim petition in entirety warrants interference? and ii. If answer to Point no.1 is in affirmative, then compensation to which claimant would be entitled to?
13. Point no.(i) : Perusal of award passed by Tribunal reveals that claim petition was dismissed on finding that claimant had failed to establish occurrence of accident involving insured -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5205 MFA No. 102373 of 2015 HC-KAR vehicle due to actionable negligence of its rider. Said finding was based on uncontroverted fact that complaint was not registered immediately after accident, but claimant had filed private complaint after nearly six months of incident. Only explanation offered by claimant in claim petition as well as in private complaint was immediately after accident, claimant was taken to Preeti Speciality Dental Clinic at Belagavi and was under
treatment. However, when complaint was sought to be registered, owner intervened and sought to settle claim. Even on day next after accident, when claimant sought to register complaint, owner offered settlement by paying medical expenses.
14. After completion of treatment, when claimant approached police, it was realised that no complaint was registered and police informed that it was too late. Therefore, claimant was constrained to file private complaint. Though it is stated that after notice in private complaint, police registered FIR and also filed charge sheet. It is settled law that prosecution records would be prima facie evidence and would be subject to specific evidence led before Tribunal. Ex.P12 does indicate that -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5205 MFA No. 102373 of 2015 HC-KAR rider of motorcycle had pleaded guilty for having caused accident by riding motorcycle in rash and negligent manner. Normally in case of personal injury claims, medical treatment records are relied upon to corroborate time and manner of occurrence of accident. In instant case, claimant has not produced wound certificate. Though they rely on Ex.P10 - Medical Certificate issued by Dr.Shivayogi M.Hugar and certificate issued by Preeti Specialty Dental Clinic as Ex.P11, Ex.P10 is undated while Ex.P11 is issued three years after accident. Ex.P12 - hospital receipts issued by KLE Hospital as well as Bharath Agency also do not bear date, while medical receipt issued by Sri Sai Medical and General Stores is dated 24.12.2011. Even Ex.P13 - prescription slip issued by Preeti Specialty Dental Clinic are of subsequent dates. X-ray film of teeth appended to Medico Legal Certificate issued by PW2 marked as Ex.P15, are not marked. X-ray produced and marked as Ex.P16 does not bear name of patient.
15. Under above circumstances, in absence of any specific documents corroborating claimant's version, Tribunal would be justified in holding claimant having failed to establish actionable negligence against owner and consequently insurer -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:5205 MFA No. 102373 of 2015 HC-KAR would not be liable. In view of above, Point no.1 is answered in affirmative.
16. Point no.2: In view of finding on Point no.1, there would be no useful purpose in answering Point no.2. Consequently, appeal is dismissed.
In view of disposal of main appeal, pending application is dismissed as unnecessary.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE EM,CLK CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 6