Dismissed

Sri Srinivas B L v. Sri Sasi Knth Vallem

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2021MFA/1640/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka considered an appeal against the dismissal of a compensation claim. The Court held that the appellant failed to prove the specific vehicle's involvement due to a 10-month delay in lodging a complaint and lack of documentary evidence, upholding the Tribunal's decision.

What did the court decide?

The F.A.No. was dismissed as the appellant failed to substantiate the involvement of the specific vehicle in the accident.

Sri Srinivas B L Vs Sri Sasi Knth Vallem — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

M.F.A.NO. 1640/2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SRINIVAS B.L. S/O. M. LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED 46 YEARS OCCUPATION: NIL R/O. No.9, SKR MARKET BENGALURU-560 002. … APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI SURESH M. LATHUR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. SASI KNTH VALLEM

¶12

S/O. VALLEM JAGARAO R/O. No.68/21, FIRST MAIN ROAD LOWER PALACE ORCHADE BENGALURU- 560 003.

¶13

THE MANAGER

¶14

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., No.41, CRISTU COMPLEX 2^ND FLOOR, LAVELLE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI H.S.LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

¶17

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.08.2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.2224/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶18

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH ‘VIDEO CONFERENCE’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Though the matter is listed for admission today, with the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶21

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 29.08.2012, passed in M.V.C.No.2224/2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City, SCCH.10 (‘the Tribunal’ for short) dismissing the claim petition.

¶22

The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

¶23

¶24

The factual matrix of the case is that on 23.03.2009

¶25

at about 11.30 a.m., the claimant was riding his Scooter bearing registration No.CKP-6570 along with his wife on 11^th Cross, Malleswaram towards Post office, at that time a Car bearing Registration No.KA-41-M-1750 driven by its driver on reverse gear with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Scooter. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Manipal Northside Hospital, Bengaluru by the driver of the Car and other general public, where he took treatment for a period of 10 days. The claimant in the claim petition as well as in the evidence has contended that the driver of the Car has assured that he would meet medical expenses and also contended that the information regarding accident was intimated to the police on the very same day. The police had also told that the driver would meet the medical expenses and hence, the case was not registered. When the driver of the Car did not meet the medical expenses, he was forced to lodge a complaint in the month of February 2010. The police have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against the driver. It is the contention of the claimant that he

¶26

¶27

had spent huge money for meeting the medical expenses. As a result of the accident, he has suffered the permanent disability. The claim petition was opposed by the Insurance Company by filing a detailed statement of objections contending that the vehicle has been falsely implicated in the case and there is a delay of 10 months in lodging the complaint by the claimant which has not been explained. Only in order to make wrongful gain, the present claim petition is filed before the Court.

¶28

The claimant, in order to substantiate his claim, examined himself as P.W.1 and also other witnesses as P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 and also got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company examined one witness and got marked two documents at Exs.R1 and R2. The Tribunal, after considering material available on record, answered issued Nos.1 and 2 as negative and dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal is filed before this Court.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the Tribunal has committed an error in

¶30

¶31

dismissing the claim petition of the claimant only on the technical grounds. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that the Tribunal has committed an error in disbelieving the document at Ex.P2-the police intimation given to the police immediately after the accident. The police have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against the driver of the Car. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that the driver of the vehicle admitted the guilt and pleaded before the Tribunal. The evidence of the witnesses particularly P.Ws.1 and 4 has not been rebutted by the Insurance Company by adducing any evidence. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that there is no material before the Court to substantiate the fact that the case has been registered against the driver of the Car in collusion with the police and except examining R.W.1, nothing has been placed before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the claimant has not proved involvement of the vehicle in the accident. The Tribunal failed to take note of all these factors for the consideration while answering issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶32

¶33

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company would vehemently contend that there is no any proper explanation by the claimant in lodging the complaint after the lapse of 10 months after the accident. It is also contended that in Ex.P2-the police intimation, the vehicle number is not mentioned and to that effect also, the i.e., P.Ws.1 and 4 were cross-examined but no substantial evidence is placed before the Court. P.W.4 is none other than a witness who has been cited to show that he was an eye witness to the accident. In the cross-examination, the truth has been elicited from the mouth of P.W.4. In the absence of any documentary proof with regard to the vehicle was involved in the accident, the Tribunal has not committed any error in appreciating the evidence available on record.

¶34

Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this

¶35

Court para Nos.11 to 14, wherein the Tribunal has made a detailed discussion by coming to the conclusion that Ex.P2 has not been proved and also the cross-examination of P.W.4 not inspires the confidence of the Court in coming to the conclusion

¶36

¶37

that he was an eye witness to the accident. Hence, there is no material to come to the other conclusion that the claimant has proved the accident involving the vehicle in question.

¶38

Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2Insurance Company and also on perusal of the records, the points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are:-

¶39

(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in answering issue Nos.1 and 2 as negative by dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the very involvement of the vehicle in the accident is doubtful?

¶40

(ii) What Order ?

¶41

Points No.1 and 2:-

¶42

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the records, it is contended by the learned counsel for the claimant that the police intimation was given to the police on

¶43

the very same day by the hospital. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court Ex.P2. On perusal of Ex.P2,

¶44

¶45

the intimation was given to the police and the same is dated 23.03.2009, wherein the place of the accident is mentioned as “RTA at 11.30 a.m. on 23.03.2009 near 11^th Cross, Malleswaram”, but the fact is that the vehicle number is not mentioned in the said intimation. In the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 4, they have categorically admitted that the said document does not disclose the vehicle number. No doubt, P.W.1, in his evidence made an attempt to explain the delay in lodging the complaint stating that the owner of the vehicle had assured to settle the medical bills and also deposed that the police inspector also came and informed that the owner of the vehicle intends to settle the issue. In the evidence of P.W.1, nothing is mentioned as to the name of the police officer, who came and informed the claimant about the settlement. It is also important to note that in order to prove Ex.P2, the police officer who had acknowledged the intimation has not been examined before the Tribunal and also the name of the person, who came and told that the owner would settle the medical bills has not been mentioned.

¶46

¶47

On perusal of the Ex.P2, except narrating the

¶48

accident, nothing is mentioned with regard to the vehicle. Only on 11.12.2010, for the first time, the vehicle number is mentioned in the complaint which is marked as Ex.P3. Almost for a period of 10 months, no such document had emerged and none of the hospital records also disclose that this vehicle was involved in the accident. The IMV report at Ex.P7 discloses that no fresh damage is found on the vehicle due to the said impact. No doubt, the accident had taken place on 23.03.2009 but the IMV inspection was conducted on 20.02.2010 almost after a period of 11 months.

¶49

It is the contention of the claimant that the driver of

¶50

the Car himself admitted him to the hospital. No doubt, P.W.4, an eye witness says that the driver of the Car along with the general public shifted him to the hospital. In order to substantiate the contention of the claimant that P.W.4 and also driver of the Car admitted the injured to the hospital, no document is placed before the Court. All these factors are taken note of by the Tribunal while considering the material on record

¶51

¶52

and discussed in detail at para No.14. In order to substantiate

¶53

the fact that this vehicle was involved in the accident in question, no material is placed except the complaint lodged after 11 months of the accident. The delay in filing the complaint after 11 months of the accident is also not properly explained either by examining the police officer, who came to the hospital and informed about the settlement or the owner of the vehicle, who assured that he would meet the medical expenses. No doubt the driver of the Car had pleaded guilty before the Magistrate Court, but in order to prove the fact that the vehicle was involved in the accident, no immediate documents are forthcoming before the Court. When such being the facts and circumstances, the very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that no material is before the Court with regard to the implication of the vehicle, cannot be accepted. It is the duty of the claimant to place the material before the Court at the first instance itself in order to prove the involvement of the vehicle in the accident.

¶54

¶55

No doubt, strictly the evidence is not applicable in

¶56

the motor vehicles accidents claim, but the claimant has to place the material to inspire the confidence of the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that this vehicle was involved in the accident.

¶57

First of all, the delay in lodging the complaint has not been explained and in order to make the claim against the insured and owner of the vehicle on the ground that the vehicle was involved in the accident, no material is placed before the Court. In the absence of any substantial material before the Court, this Court cannot come to the other conclusion. The Tribunal also while considering the material on record, particularly, the evidence of P.W.4, has come to the conclusion that in order to prove the fact that he was an eye witness to the accident and also that though he claims that he had given complaint and letter to the police with regard to the accident, nothing is placed before the Court. First of all, no complaint was lodged immediately after the accident, but the complaint was given after lapse of 11 months of the accident in terms of Ex.P3. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the appeal to come to the other conclusion.

¶58

¶59

In view of the discussion made above, I pass the

¶60

following:-

¶61

ORDER

¶62

The appeal is hereby dismissed.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

PYR

Sri Srinivas B L v. Sri Sasi Knth Vallem

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Srinivas B L v. Sri Sasi Knth Vallem

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Branch Manager Vs N Ramaiah

Ranjith @ Ranju Vs the State of Karnataka

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gangamma

Apoorva Vs Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Udaykumar Vs Chithramma

M/S. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Srujan P Naik