Dismissed

Smt Vinoda Murthy v. N Raghavendra S/O N Gururaja

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2012MFA/12324/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous first appeal against the dismissal of a motor accident compensation claim was disposed of by upholding the Tribunal's finding. The High Court affirmed that the Tribunal correctly held the incidence to be a self-fall, supported by early hospital and police reports, rejecting a subsequent attempt to convert it into a road traffic accident.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with costs held to be devoid of merits as the judgment of the Tribunal does not suffer from perversity or illegality.

Smt Vinoda Murthy Vs N Raghavendra S/O N Gururaja — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 4^th DAY OF JUNE 2012

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA MFA.No.12324 OF 2007 (MV)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Smt.Vinoda Murthy, W/o H.N.Narasimha Gupta,

¶7

Since Dead by L.R. M.N.Narasimha Gupta, S/o H.N.Naryana Setty, Aged about 71 years, Residing at No.148/2, 27th Cross, 6th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore. ... Appellant

¶8

[By Smt.Keerthi Kiran for Sri.C.V.Nagesh & Sri.K.R.Lankesh, Advocates]

¶9

AND:

¶10

N.Raghavendra S/o N.Gururaja, Aged Major, Residing at No.56, 10th Main, 7th Block, 4th Phase, Banashankari III Stage, Bangalore-560 065. ...Respondent

¶11

[By Sri.Gautham & Sri.Rajeshwar, Advocates]

¶12

¶13

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of MV Act, against the judgment and award dated 16.7.2007 passed in MVC No.968/2001 on the file of XII Additional Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City, (SCCH-8), dismissing the petition claiming compensation.

¶14

This Appeal coming for hearing on this day, the court delivered the following:

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

This appeal is by the legal representative of the original claimant in MVC No.968/2001 on the file of 12th Additional MACT, Bangalore, who had filed the petition seeking compensation for the personal injuries said to have been sustained by her in the road traffic accident that occurred at 4.30 p.m. on 29.1.2000 on Kumbigal Road, Bangalore. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 16.7.2007 dismissing the aforesaid claim petition.

¶17

Smt.Vinoda Murthy, wife of the appellant herein filed claim petition on 7.3.2001 seeking compensation of

¶18

¶19

Rs.5 lakhs from the respondent inter alia contending that at about 4.30 p.m. on 29.1.2000 while she was waiting at

¶20

the edge of the foot path on Kumbigal Road to take an auto rickshaw to go to Jayanagar, black coloured Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle bearing registration No.KA05-EA-325 ridden by the respondent came on the said road from Lalbagh Main Gate towards Lalbagh West Gate at a great speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her and as a result of the impact, she sustained severe injuries on the head, hands, legs and other parts of the body; that immediately she was taken to her sister’s house by a passerby assisted by the respondent and his pillion rider; that thereafter, the respondent as well as the pillion rider quietly slipped away from the crowd; that about half an hour later she started complaining about severe pain in the head and started to vomit, and she was immediately taken to A.V.Hospital, Bangalore where she took treatment as inpatient up to

¶21

¶22

30.1.2000 and later she was shifted to D.G.Hospital at Padmanabanagar where she took treatment as inpatient from 30.1.2000 to 7.2.2000; that an emergency surgery was conducted to remove the haemorrhage; that the Kalasipalya police who were informed about the aforesaid accident, registered the case in Crime No.262/2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of

¶23

IPC; that the accident was solely due to the negligence of the respondent as rider of the motor cycle.

¶24

The respondent appeared before the Tribunal

¶25

through his learned counsel and filed his objections denying all the petition averments and contended that the vehicle owned by him was not involved in any accident as alleged and that he was not responsible for the alleged injuries sustained by the claimant; that the police after investigation filed B-summary report, therefore, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶26

¶27

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

¶28

Tribunal framed the following issues:

¶29

Whether petitioner proves that on 29.1.2000 at about 4.30 p.m. when she was waiting on the edge of the footpath on Kumbigal road to take auto to Jayanagar, the driver of Hero Honda Splendor bearing registration No.KA-05: EA – 325 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner on account of which the petitioner fell down sustained grievous injuries as pleaded?

¶30

Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so how much and from whom?

¶31

What Order?

¶32

During the pendency of the petition, the claimant

¶33

Vinoda Murthy died on 19.9.2001. Thereafter the

¶34

¶35

appellant herein, claiming to be the husband of the claimant came on record as legal representative and continued the petition. During enquiry, the appellant was examined as PW.1, two witnesses were examined as PW.2 and 3, Exs.P.1 to P.14 were produced by the appellant. On the other hand the respondent examined himself as RW.1 and he relied on documentary evidence Exs.R.1 to R.7.

¶36

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the evidence placed by the claimant does not prove that there was an accident involving the motor cycle owned and driven by the respondent; and a case of self - fall is sought to be converted into a motor vehicle accident. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has presented this appeal.

¶37

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant

¶38

¶39

as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶40

Perused the records secured from the Tribunal.

¶41

As could be seen from the judgment under appeal,

¶42

the Tribunal after referring to the oral and documentary evidence produced by both sides has held that the claimant has failed to prove the accident as a result of the motor cycle dashing against her; that at the earliest point of time, the history furnished in D.G. Hospital when she was brought there on 30.1.2000 was self-fall while walking on the road; that the statement said to have been made by the injured before the police while she was taking treatment in Devegowda Hospital on 30.1.2000 would also

¶43

indicate that she sustained injuries as a result of fall while she was walking on the road and in the said statement she had not disclosed about a motor cycle dashing against her; that subsequently there was an attempt to convert the cause of injury as road traffic accident; that the

¶44

¶45

claimant has not examined any of the employees of the workshop who said to have disclosed about occurrence of accident as a result of motor cycle dashing her and who said to have furnished the registration number of the motor cycle to G.S.Raju, son of the elder sister of the original claimant who appears to have lodged a written complaint on 6.2.2000 to establish the accident alleged. The Tribunal has not accepted PW.2 as eye-witness. It is under these circumstances, the Tribunal has rejected the case of the claimant.

¶46

These findings recorded by the Tribunal have been called in question in this appeal. I have closely scrutinized the evidence on record. Having perused the record closely and also having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that the claimant has failed to prove the accident alleged and

¶47

¶48

therefore the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the claim petition. Even according to the statement made in the claim petition, immediately after the alleged accident, the injured was taken to her sister’s house and for about half an hour she was in her sister’s house and thereafter she was taken to A.V. Hospital since she said to have developed severe pain in the head and began to vomit. Even according to the appellant, the injured was shifted to Devegowda Hospital on 30.1.2000. The appellant did not produce any certificate from A.V. Hospital to show as to what was the history furnished in A.V. Hospital where she was first taken. However, the appellant sought to place reliance on the wound certificate and discharge summary issued by D.G.Hospital to contend that it was a road traffic accident. The wound certificate as well as discharge summary was issued subsequently.

¶49

The respondent has produced Ex.R.5, a copy of

¶50

¶51

the intimation sent from Causality Medical Officer D.G.Hospital, Padmanabanagar to the police in respect of medico legal case pertaining to Smt.Vinoda Murthy. As per the contents of Ex.R.5, the injured was brought to the Causality of said Hospital, with history of self - fall while walking on the road.

¶52

Ex.R.6 is a copy of the statement said to have

¶53

been made by the injured before the police on 30.1.2000 while she was taking treatment in D.G.Hospital and even in this statement she has disclosed that while she was walking on the road on account of giddiness she fell down as a result she sustained head injury.

¶54

Ex.R.4 is a copy of the complaint dated 6.2.2000

¶55

lodged by G.S.Raju, the son of the elder sister of the injured. According to the contents of Ex.R.4, on 29.1.2000 while he was in the house he received information that his Aunt is lying unconscious on

¶56

¶57

Kumbigal Road and immediately he went there, shifted her to A.V.Hospital and from there to D.G.Hospital; that on the way when he enquired his Aunt she disclosed to him that while she was walking, on account of giddiness she fell down and sustained head injury; that accordingly, he informed the Doctors in the Hospital as well as he requested the police to record the statement of her Aunt; that thereafter when he went to Kumbigal Road to make enquiry, the workers in a workshop nearby informed him that his Aunt sustained injury on account of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-05 EA-325 dashing against her. Therefore, he lodged the said complaint saying that there is confusion as to whether his Aunt sustained injuries on account of self-fall or on account of road traffic accident, therefore, he wanted the police to enquire into the matter and take suitable action.

¶58

Thus Ex.R.4 confirms recording of statement of

¶59

¶60

injured Vinoda Murthy in the Hospital. It also confirms that the injured had disclosed to him as to how she sustained injuries i.e., on account of fall due to giddiness while she was walking on the road. Kalasipalya police registered the case in C.Misc.No.60/2000 on the basis of the statement of Vinoda Murthy on 30.1.2000. It is thereafter on 5.7.2000, the injured appears to have sent a written complaint to the Station House Officer of Kalasipalya Police Station by registered post, on receipt of which the police registered case in Crime No. 263/2000 and investigation was conducted and after investigation filed B-summary report as per Ex.R1. It appears subsequently, the injured filed a private complaint, which was also referred to the police. Thus the contents of the documentary evidence which have come into existence at the earliest point of time would clearly establish that the injured had sustained the injuries on account of fall due to the giddiness while she was walking. The contents of

¶61

¶62

the wound certificate as well as discharge summary issued by D.G.Hospital mentioning the history as road traffic accident, were issued subsequently. Therefore, in the light of the contents of the documents coming into existence at the earliest point of time, the Tribunal, in my opinion, is justified in holding that there was an attempt made by the claimant and her family members to convert a self-fall into a road traffic accident. The said finding, in my opinion, is sound and reasonable having regard to the contents of the documents and also the oral evidence. Therefore, in my opinion, the judgment does not suffer from any perversity or illegality, as such it does not call for interference by this Court. Therefore, the appeal is devoid

¶63

of any merits, as such it is dismissed with cost.

¶64

SD/JUDGE

¶65

RS/*

Smt Vinoda Murthy v. N Raghavendra S/O N Gururaja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Vinoda Murthy v. N Raghavendra S/O N Gururaja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmana S/O Narayanappa Vs the State by Kanakapura Rural Police

Lakshmana S/O Narayanappa Vs the State by Kanakapura Rural Police

B Manju S/O Bhaskar Naidu Vs the State of Karnataka

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri R Manjappa

Rudresh S/O Kariyaiah Vs the Divisional Manager the New India Assurance Co.

Sri Vinay Kumar S/O Sampangi Vs the Managing Director