Dismissed

Sri Ningegowda v. Mohankumar D

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2021MFA/3155/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous appeal, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal challenging the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order dismissing a compensation claim. The appellant failed to prove he was injured in the specified accident due to uncorroborated medical timings. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; no compensation was awarded.

Sri Ningegowda Vs Mohankumar D — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER,2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3155/2015 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. NINGEGOWDA, S/O DODDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT BALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶9

... APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. H.J.ANANDA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MOHANKUMAR D., S/O DEVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT GAVENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶13

MANAGER,

¶14

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., GANDHI BAZAR CIRCLE, B.M.ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.09.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1719/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶18

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The appellant has preferred the above appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter in short called as 'MACT'), Hassan dated 29.09.2014 in M.V.C.No.171/2013, wherein, claim petition field by the appellant under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1989 (in short 'M.V. Act'), came to be dismissed.

¶22

The appellant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal contending that, on 27.05.2013 at about 10.30 a.m., when the appellant and others were travelling in a Mahindra Maxi Cab bearing Registration No.KA-13-5261 on B.M.Road, N.H.48 near Shanthigrama High School, at that time, driver of TATA AC Vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-13-A-8492 driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Maxi Cab vehicle and caused grievous injuries to appellant's left leg, head, left hand and other parts of the body. Immediately, appellant was taken to S.C.Hospital, Hassan, wherein he took treatment as inpatient for a period of seven days and spent amount.

¶23

¶24

Hence, he filed the claim petition for loss and injury suffered by him.

¶25

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 entered appearance and filed written statement. They have denied the contention of the appellant and stated that appellant is not entitled for any relief and the petition is not maintainable. They have denied any injuries caused to the appellant. Respondent No.2 stated that the insurance policy was in force but the liability was subject to terms and conditions of the policy.

¶26

Tribunal based on that, framed the issues. Thereafter, appellant got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 6 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. Respondents have not led any evidence. Tribunal after hearing the arguments dismissed the petition.

¶27

Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant

¶29

and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶30

¶31

The only ground urged by the appellant's counsel is that Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence. Though it is established that the appellant has sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on 27.05.2013, the Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the petition. The Police have not recorded statement of the appellant due to oversight. In the wound certificate timing of inpatient was mentioned as 8.30 a.m. but for outpatient it was mentioned as 9.45 a.m. Therefore, finding of the Tribunal is not correct. The appellant has sustained three injuries and he was inpatient for seven days and incurred Rs.15,000/- and hence prays to set aside the impugned judgment and award the compensation.

¶32

Learned counsel for respondent No.2

¶33

supported the judgment of the Tribunal.

¶34

I have carefully perused the judgment and the records of the Tribunal both oral and documentary evidence.

¶35

P.W.1 has filed his examination chief affidavit which is nothing but reiteration of the petition averments.

¶36

¶37

In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not lodged any separate complaint about accident. He has denied the suggestion that he has not sustained any injuries in the complaint. The appellant has produced six documents. Ex.P.1 is the FIR which shows that accident occurred on 27.05.2013 at about 10.30 a.m. Ex.P.2 is the complaint and Ex.P.3 is the chargesheet. The said chargesheet shows the case against the driver of the said Maxi Cab for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 IPC and Section 187 of IPC Motor Vehicle Act and it is stated that while driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, he caused injuries to witness Nos.1 to 7.

¶38

The name of this appellant is not found in the

¶39

chargesheet either as witness or as an injured. I have carefully perused Ex.P.4, wound certificate, which shows that appellant was firstly examined by the doctor on 03.06.2013 at 9.45 a.m. and he came to the hospital for being sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on 27.05.2013 at 8.30 a.m. which does not tally with the time of the accident in this case. Further, if at all appellant has

¶40

¶41

sustained injury and taken treatment as an inpatient for seven days, there is difference in timings on records. When other witnesses were taken to hospital and they got treated, why this appellant kept quiet till 03.06.2013 is not forthcoming. He has not produced any document to show that he had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident which occurred on 27.05.2013 at 10.30 a.m. So, Ex.P.3 is of no use to the appellant which is dated more than a week after the said accident he approached the doctor with a different timing. Either in the FIR or in the chargesheet, there is no whisper about appellant sustaining any injuries in the said accident.

¶42

Tribunal in its judgment has considered both oral and documentary evidence and came to the conclusion that the appellant might have sustained injuries on 27.05.2013 at 8.30 a.m. it may be with some other vehicle and not in this accident which occurred at 10.30 a.m. The material discrepancy in the timings in the wound certificate and the medical records, that the appellant was admitted to hospital and took treatment for seven days, is not corroborated with each other. The said contention of the

¶43

¶44

appellant was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. Even appellant has not examined any doctor, who has treated or issued wound certificate. He has not produced any case sheet or medical documents. Therefore, simply stating that he has taken treatment and spent huge money on treatment, without producing any records will not help the appellant in any way. Therefore, when the appellant has failed to prove that he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident involving the impugned vehicle on that day and when he fails to prove that he sustained injuries as stated by him and took treatment in the hospital, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that respondents are not liable to pay any compensation. Accordingly, Tribunal has rightly dismissed the petition. Tribunal has properly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence in appropriate manner. Judgment of the Tribunal cannot be said either erroneous, illegal or perverse. Hence, I find no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶45

¶46

ORDER

¶47

The appeal filed by the appellant being devoid of

¶48

merits is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the appeal is

dismissed .

No costs.

Sd/JUDGE

pgg

Sri Ningegowda v. Mohankumar D

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ningegowda v. Mohankumar D

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

Chandregowda Vs P. Kaliyappan

Cholamandalam M S General Vs N Bhagya

Mr.Sushir Kumar Vs Mr.B.Jinendra

Sri K Armugam Vs the Managing Director

Karnataka State Road Vs Thirupathi Naika

Sri. Padmanabha Vs Narasimha Reddy D