Dismissed

Smt N Lalitha v. Sri Nagaraju

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2020MFA/5460/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the dismissal of a motor accident compensation claim. The High Court affirmed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's finding that the complainants colluded to falsely implicate an insured bike and police officials, citing inordinate delay and contradictory witness testimony, and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed affirming the Tribunal's finding that the claim was a false implication resulting from collusion.

Smt N Lalitha Vs Sri Nagaraju — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

MFA.NO.5460 OF 2014(MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

1 . SMT. N. LALITHA W/O LATE K.SRINIVASULU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶11

2 . KUM. S. TEJASHREE D/O LATE K. SRINIVASULU AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶12

3 . MASTER S. PAVANKUMAR S/O LATE K. SRINIVASULU AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS

¶13

4 . SMT. N. GOWRAMMA W/O K. HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

¶14

SRI. K. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS (DELETED AS DEAD)

¶15

¶16

PETITIONER NO.3 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1

¶17

ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE R/O NO. 274 6^TH "E" CROSS, BYATARAYANAPURA BELLARY ROAD, SAHAKARNAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 092

¶18

....APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SRI. K.T. GURUDEV PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

1 . SRI. NAGARAJU MAJOR, S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY R/O NO. 89, JAKKUR LAYOUT 4^TH CROSS, JAKKUR BANGALORE-5602 064

¶22

2 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., D.O. NO.6, NO.20, 2^ND FLOOR 9^TH MAIN, OPEN REDUCTION INTERNAL FIXATION PAVI VICEROY HOTEL, JAYANAGAR III BLOCK BANGALORE-560 011

¶23

….RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNASWAMY FOR R2 , ADVOCATE)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.06.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.4874/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶26

¶27

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 04.11.2020, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The captioned appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 11.6.2014 passed in MVC.No.4874/2011 by the MACT and Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, in dismissing their claim petition.

¶30

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶31

The appellants-claimants filed claim petition by

¶32

contending that on 22.1.2011 at about 7.15 p.m. the husband of the first appellant namely K. Srinivasalu was crossing Bengaluru-Bellary Road, in front of one Byregowda's house at Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru, in East-West direction. At that juncture, the rider of the motor bike bearing Regn.No. KA-50/K-1158 came in

¶33

¶34

North-South direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said K.Srinivasalu. The appellants further contended that on account of the impact, K.Srinivasalu fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to Columbia Asia Hospital, Hebbal, Bengaluru, where he was treated as inpatient from 22.01.2011 to 9.3.2011. Inspite of best treatment, deceased Sri. K.Srinivasulu succumbed to the injuries on 9.3.2011. The appellants contended that the deceased was hale and healthy and was working as a Technician at M/s.L & T Komatsu Limited and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. The appellants being wife and children and parents of the deceased claimed to be dependants of the deceased and hence, filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.2 crores.

¶35

The second respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle involved in the accident contested

¶36

¶37

the proceedings by filing the written statement. The second respondent stoutly denied the entire averments made in the claim petition. They also filed additional written statement and took a specific contention that the complaint is lodged after lapse of four days and in this background, a specific contention was taken in the written statement that the motor bike bearing Regn.No.KA.50/K.1158 has been falsely implicated by the appellants in collusion with the insured and the police to claim compensation. On these set of defence, the second respondent sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶38

Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

¶39

"1.Whether the petitioner proves that the deceased succumbed to injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 22.1.2011 at about 7.15 p.m. on Bangalore-Bellary Road, Opposite Byregowda's House, Bytarayanapura, Bangalore, by rash and

¶40

¶41

negligent driving of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-50-K-1158 by its rider?

¶42

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

¶43

3.What order?"

¶44

The appellants-claimants in support of their contentions, examined the widow of deceased as P.W.1 and examined two independent witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and in support of their ocular evidence produced documentary evidence vide Exs.P1 to P34. The second respondent-Insurance Company in support of its defence examined three witnesses as R.Ws.1 to

¶45

3 and produced documents as per Exs.R1 to R8.

¶46

The Tribunal has taken judicial note of inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and also the categorical admissions given by P.W.1 in her cross-examination wherein she has admitted that P.W.2 is her relative. She has also admitted that Narasimhamurthy is

¶47

¶48

known to her and is also her distant relative. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company has examined the Investigating Officer as R.W.2 and the Investigating Officer has admitted in his crossexamination that he did not visit the hospital when the injured was admitted in the hospital. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the admission made by RW.2 is contrary to what the eye witness P.W.2 has stated in his cross-examination. P.W.2 has stated that the Sub-Inspector and a constable visited the hospital on the same day at night. Thus, the Tribunal has proceeded to answer issue No.1 holding that there are discrepancies in the form of ocular as well as documentary evidence. The Tribunal was also of the view that these significant discrepancies would create doubt as regard to the occurrence of the accident as alleged in the claim petition. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the bike is falsely implicated

¶49

¶50

and the appellants have failed to establish the involvement of the bike in the accident. It has also drawn adverse inference for lodging complaint after four days. On these set of findings, the Tribunal has proceeded to answer Issue No.1 in the affirmative and accordingly, dismissed the claim petition.

¶51

The learned counsel appearing for

¶52

appellants-claimants would vehemently argue and contend that P.W.2 who is the eye witness has deposed with regard to the manner in which the accident took place. However, the same is discarded by the Tribunal which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. He would further argue that the person who accompanied the injured to the hospital has furnished the details of the accident and the hospital authorities have made a note in the case sheet as a case of RTA occurred while crossing the road and was hit by a two wheeler. In this background, the learned counsel for

¶53

¶54

the claimants would submit that the case sheets marked as Ex.R3 would establish the involvement of the bike and that the hospital authorities have immediately reported the accident to the jurisdictional Hebbal Traffic police and as such there is no delay in on the part of the injured or the hospital authorities. The learned counsel for appellants would further contend that since the hospital authorities were intimated in regard to the road traffic accident, it was incumbent on the part of the jurisdictional police to register the case. Lapse on the part of the police Officers would in no way falsify a genuine claim and that these material aspects have not at all been taken into consideration by the Tribunal.

¶55

Learned counsel would further submit that

¶56

the Hebbal Traffic Police has refused to register the case as it does not fall within their jurisdiction. Therefore, after verification a fresh complaint was

¶57

¶58

registered with the Yelahanka Traffic Police Station against the offending vehicle. Learned counsel for appellants would further contend that there is clinching evidence on record which would clearly establish the involvement of the offending bike in the accident. However, the Tribunal has erred in misreading the evidence on record and in the absence of rebuttal evidence let in by the second respondentInsurance Company, has proceeded to dismiss the claim petition which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

¶59

Per contra, learned counsel for the

¶60

Insurance Company would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the admissions given by P.Ws.1 and 2 would clinch the issue and the same would establish that appellants-claimants with the assistance of the owner of the offending bike who happens to be a distant relative have come up with

¶61

¶62

this false claim. The Tribunal has meticulously examined all the material aspects which goes to the root of the case and after examining these significant details, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition by recording the categorical finding that the appellants have come up with a false claim by falsely implicating the bike owned by their relative. The counsel submits that the finding recorded and conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and based on legal evidence tendered by second respondent-Insurance company. The judgment and award of the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmities and thereby would not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶63

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶64

appellants and the respondent-Insurance Company. Perused the pleadings of the parties and we have

¶65

¶66

meticulously examined the entire oral and

¶67

documentary evidence on record.

¶68

The following point would arise for

¶69

consideration:

¶70

"Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition by holding that appellants have failed to prove the involvement of the bike in the accident?

¶71

The case of the claimants is that the

¶72

deceased was trying to cross Bengaluru-Bellary road in front of the house owned by one Byre Gowda at Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru in East-West direction. At that juncture, the rider of the motor bike bearing No.KA-50/K-1158 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the husband of appellant No.1. The accident has occurred on 22.1.2011. Claimants have relied on the evidence of P.W.2 who is stated to be an eye witness. It is also forthcoming that

¶73

¶74

on the same day, the husband of the first appellant was admitted at Columbia Asia Hospital, B.B. Road, Hebbal, Bengaluru. On meticulous examination of the cross-examination of P.W.1, she has stated that she did not visit the hospital on the same day and the explanation offered in that regard is that she was unconscious. In her further cross-examination, the Insurance Company has succeeded in eliciting the relationship of appellants-claimants with the owner of the bike alleged to be involved in the accident and also her relationship with P.W.2 who is claiming to be the eye witness to the accident in question. In her cross-examination, she admits that Narasimha is known to her and is her distant relative. He is none other than the father of the first respondent who is the owner of the bike involved in the accident. It is also not in dispute that it was the first respondent who was riding the bike. P.W.2 in his cross-examination

¶75

¶76

has stated that he informed the Hospital authorities regarding the nature of the accident on the same day. He has also stated in the cross-examination that on the same night, the Sub-Inspector and constable visited the hospital. Further stated in the crossexamination that complaint was not lodged on the same day since he was also under shock. One more significant details which is elicited from P.W.1 is that the appellants-claimants, the owner of the bike involved in the accident and P.W.2 apart being relatives are also residents of the same vicinity. If all these material aspects are taken into consideration, and if the delay of four days in lodging the complaint is also taken into consideration, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition. The inordinate delay of four days in lodging the complaint would indicate that the appellants with the aid of the owner of the bike and P.W.2 and in

¶77

¶78

collusion with the Police Officials have lodged false complaint to secure compensation.

¶79

On re-appreciation of oral and documentary

¶80

evidence, we would find that the deceased was inpatient for 48 days and during the interregnum period, the police officials have not at all enquired with appellant No.1 and no statements are recorded. R.W.2 who is the police inspector has admitted in unequivocal terms that he never visited the hospital when the injured was admitted. RW.1 who is the doctor of Columbia Asia Hospital has produced MLC register and the same is marked as Ex.R1. P.W.2 has stated that the vehicle details were furnished to the hospital authorities on the same day. The evidence of R.W.2 would also clinch the issue. In his examination-in-chief, R.W.2 has stated in unequivocal terms that there was delay in lodging the complaint since there was no one to look after the injured in the

¶81

¶82

hospital. This relevant portion in the examination-inchief would in all probability unveil the true facts. In this background, if the entire evidence is assessed, the theory set up by the appellants-claimants that PW.2 who was the eye witness to the accident admitted the husband of first claimant to the hospital stands falsified. This statement of R.W.2 in examination-in-chief would clearly create doubt with regard to the involvement of the bike. The deceased might have sustained injuries in the road traffic accident, but however, the case of the appellants that P.W.2 was also present at the place of the accident who was also trying to cross the road along with the deceased is nothing but a cooked up story. The fact that the wife of the deceased who is examined as P.W.1 has tried to offer explanation that she did not

¶83

rush to the hospital on the same day as she was unconscious appears to be nothing but a false

¶84

¶85

narration and the said explanation is only to overcome the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. Delay in lodging FIR relating to Motor Vehicle accidents are to be dealt on different forting. PW2 has stated that SubInspector and Police Constable had visited hospital on the same day. If that is so, then there was no impediment for Police Officer to register Crime on the same day, more particularly when PW.2 has stated that he had furnished vehicle details to hospital authorities. Delay of four days in lodging FIR would give rise to negative inferences. Claimants in collusion with investigating officer has setup a distorted version of the occurrence.

¶86

If all these significant details are taken note of, we are of the view that the Tribunal has meticulously examined all these material aspects and has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellantsclaimants have failed to prove the involvement of the

¶87

¶88

bike and have also failed to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding by the first respondent. The finding and conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is based on the material evidence on record and same does not suffer from any infirmities. We are in total agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal and thereby affirm the finding recorded by the Tribunal while answering Issue No.1.

¶89

In view of the above, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.

¶90

Sd/JUDGE

¶91

Sd/JUDGE

¶92

*alb/-.

Smt N Lalitha v. Sri Nagaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt N Lalitha v. Sri Nagaraju

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

C M Vinutha Vs Sri Shivakumara Swamy

Sri.Rama Devadiga Vs Sri.Sharavana Kumar

Sr Manager-Claims Vs Nagaraju T R

Yashodamma Vs the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.

The Claim Manager Vs Yashodamma

Sri Gundappa Vs Sri S Sivabalan