The Single Judge H.P. Sandesh dismissed the Motor Accident Claim Appeal considering the substantial discrepancies in oral and documentary evidence regarding the accident timeline, driver identity, and vehicle damage, which led the Tribunal to rightly conclude the vehicle's involvement was unproven.
The Motor Accident Claim Appeal is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.6747/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
G.D. SHIVASWAMY S/O LATE G.T. NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GANGOOR VILLAGE, HALEBEEDU HOBLY, BELUR TALUK , HASSAN DISTRICT-573115
… APPELLANT
(BY SRI CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
2
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.02.2013 PASSED IN MVC.NO.828/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, BELUR, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH ‘VIDEO CONFERENCE’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.828/2012 dated 26.02.2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Belur questioning the dismissal of claim petition in answering issue No.1 as negative.
The factual matrix of the case is that on 24.01.2012 at 9.00 p.m., when the claimant was proceeding along with other two persons, an auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-46-2338 belonging to the first respondent driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, dashed against him, as a result, he sustained injury to his stomach, right eye and other parts of the body. The persons, who were along with him i.e., Papanna of Sanehally village and Eresh of Gangoor village took him to his house through a vehicle and left him in the house. On the third day, he found pain in the stomach and hence, immediately, he was shifted to S.S.M.
3
Hospital, Hassan wherein, he took treatment and also gave statement before the police on 27.01.2012. He was inpatient for a period of 20 days. Due to the accidental injuries, he has suffered permanent disability.
4
as R.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.R1 to R11 i.e., copy of FIR, copy of complaint, copy of charge-sheet, copy of mahazar, seizure mahazar, IMV report, copy of wound certificate, further statement, copy of statement of one Kumaraswamy, copy of statement of Papanna, copy of statement of Eresha.
5
vehemently contend that the accident has taken place on 24.01.2012 at 9.00 p.m. and the injured did not notice severe injuries. Hence, he was taken to his house by two persons, who were there along with him. That on 26.01.2012 at 3.00 p.m., he was taken to S.S.M. Hospital, when he found pain in the abdomen and the statement of the injured was also recorded on 27.01.2012 by the police. The claimant has also explained in his affidavit that, he did not give complaint immediately on the same day since, he did not notice any severe pain.
contend that the Tribunal has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that both the injured and also owner of the auto rickshaw belong to the same village and also found the discrepancy in the complaint regarding mentioning of the name of one Suresh, who is the driver of auto rickshaw and also noticed the glass pieces found at the spot. Further, the IMV report does not disclose any damage to the glass of the auto rickshaw. The counsel would vehemently contend that the vehicle inspection was conducted on 31.01.2012 and accident
6
has taken place on 24.01.2012 and the same might have been
repaired. The Tribunal has given much importance to this discrepancy and committed an error in dismissing the claim petition.
7
The Tribunal has noticed all these factors into consideration and apart from that, the Tribunal has also observed in the mahazar, glass pieces were found in the spot but, the IMV report does not disclose any damage to the vehicle. The very contention that the glass might have been replaced, as contended by the learned counsel for the claimant cannot be believed. The Tribunal has given reasons while dismissing the claim petition and there are no grounds to entertain this appeal.
8
Point No.(i)
the respondent-Insurance Company has also examined one witness as R.W.1 and also got marked several documents. The claimant has given an explanation that he was under the impression that he has not sustained severe injury and need not go to the hospital and has not given any complaint. It is to be noted that according to the claimant, he was proceeding along
9
with two persons, who are the residents of Sanenahally and Gangoor. It is also important to note that Eresha is also resident of Gangoor and the claimant and owner of the auto rickshaw also belong to the very same village. But, in the complaint, the claimant has given the name of the driver of the auto rickshaw as one Suresh. When the claimant and the person, who is along with him i.e., Eresha are residents of Gangoor and the auto rickshaw is owned by one Somashekar, who also belong to the very same village, the discrepancy in mentioning the name of Suresh has not been properly explained by the claimant. Apart from that, the charge-sheet is filed against one S.R.Manjegowda, who is a resident of Satyamangala, Hassan.
10
glass pieces and the vehicle belongs to the very same village, the complaint was given on 27.01.2012, spot mahazar was conducted on 28.01.2012 and the vehicle was seized and subjected to inspection on 31.01.2012. Hence, the very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the vehicle might have been repaired at that time also cannot be accepted for the reason that there are discrepancies in both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. On perusal of the discharge summary also, it is mentioned that accident has taken place on 24.01.2012 at 9.30 a.m., but the claimant claims that the accident was at 9.00 p.m. on 24.01.2012. The Tribunal has also noticed the fact that the injured has not given the complaint immediately and the persons, along with him have also not given any complaint and they have not been examined before the Tribunal. It is also important to note that there is discrepancy in mentioning the name of the driver as one Suresh, who subsequently implicated one S.R.Manjegowda as driver, who is the resident of Satyamangala, Hassan Taluk, though the vehicle and the other persons, who were along with the claimant belong to the very same village.
11
the spot mahazar which discloses damage to the vehicle and the glass pieces available at the spot, the same is not properly explained. The Tribunal, while considering the issue with regard to the proving of accident has considered in detail the facts and circumstances of the case and has rightly come to the conclusion that the material available on record does not inspire the confidence of the Court to arrive at a conclusion that the vehicle in question is involved in the case. The IMV report also does not disclose any damage to the auto rickshaw. Having taken note of the cumulative evidence available before the Court, I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the claimant has not proved issue No.1 and he was wounded in the road traffic accident that occurred on the said date, time and place using the vehicle in question. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal to reverse the findings of the Tribunal, since there are several discrepancies with regard to the very accident and also the involvement of the vehicle.
12
13. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
ST
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the compensation claim petition by finding that evidence regarding vehicle involvement did not inspire confidence?
G.D. SHIVASWAMY
G.P. SOMASHEKAR
UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD.
H.P. SANDES
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
