Single judge bench dismissed the Motor Accident Claims Appeal. Upholding the Tribunal's finding that vehicle involvement was doubtful due to discrepancies in medical records, FIR, and charge-sheet regarding vehicle number and driver name, the appeal was allowed to fail.
The Motor Accident Claims Appeal filed by Chikkanna was 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 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.9370/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
CHIKKANNA, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.263,2ND FLOOR, 2ND CROSS, C T BED, T R NAGAR, BENGALURU-70. … APPELLANT
(BY SMT. P.V. KALPANA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
(BY SRI H.C. BETSUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 07.08.2019, NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC.NO.7127/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE III
2
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH ‘VIDEO CONFERENCE’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Though this matter is listed for admission today, with the consent of both the learned counsel it is taken up for final disposal.
3
Hosakote Taluk, the driver of the auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-07-7993 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. Due to which, the petitioner fell down and sustained simple as well as grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to hospital and took treatment at the first instance from 26.04.2009 to 02.05.2009 and again from 08.05.2009 to 17.05.2009. The claimant contended that on account of the accidental injuries, he has suffered permanent disability.
counsel and filed the written statement denying the averments and issuance of insurance policy and also contended that there was a delay of 54 days in lodging the complaint. It is also contended that actually one Sri Ramamurthy was the driver of the auto rickshaw, but after thought, the vehicle number was changed by giving further statement. Further, one Chandra was falsely shown in the charge-sheet as the driver of the auto rickshaw. Even the date in the seizure mahazar of offending vehicle was tampered as 25 and hence the Company is not liable
4
to pay the compensation and the accident and involvement of the vehicle is doubtful.
examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 and P.W.3 doctor and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 13. On the other hand, the respondents examined one witness as R.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.R1 to 3. The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the claim petition answering issue No.1 as negative in coming to the conclusion that the very involvement of the vehicle in the accident is doubtful.
5
come to conclusion that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. Mere denial of the involvement of the vehicle in the accident is not sufficient to dismiss the case. The Insurance Company has not proved the defence. Hence, the Tribunal committed an error.
of two vehicles i.e., two wheeler and auto rickshaw was mentioned, but no details of the auto rickshaw was given. The
6
learned counsel would also submit that the injured was discharged from the hospital even when he has taken treatment twice on 17.05.2009 and the complaint was given after one month two days and there was a delay of 53 days in filing the complaint. Even while filing the complaint by one Sri Srinivas, the name of the driver of the auto rickshaw was mentioned as Sri Ramamurthy and the claimant is relying upon the further statement of the claimant and there is no explanation as to what prevented him from lodging the complaint after the discharge. Though the claimant claims that the owner came and expressed his desire to settle the matter, the same has not been substantiated and not examined any panchayatdars who participated in the said panchayat.
7
for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1,
the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are:
on 26.04.2009. On perusal of the medical records – case diary discloses that on the very same day the injured was shifted to the hospital and he was an inpatient at the first instance till 02.05.2009 and thereafter he was again admitted on 08.05.2009 and discharged on 17.05.2009. It has to be noted that when he was admitted to the hospital, it is mentioned as history of road traffic accident, but hospital authorities have not given any intimation in respect of the accident. No doubt, due to the mistake on the part of the hospital authorities, the claimant who has sustained the injuries should not suffer. But when he was discharged from the hospital on 17.05.2009, no complaint was
8
given till 19.06.2009. The complaint was given by one Sri Srinivas and in the complaint he has mentioned the vehicle number as No.KA-07-7339 wherein he has mentioned the name of the driver of the auto rickshaw as Sri Ramamurthy.
9
been placed before the Court that during the hospitalization the owner came and assured him for compromise. After lapse of one month of the discharge, the complaint was given indicating different vehicle number and also different driver and subsequently the Investigating Officer recorded the further statement of the claimant and filed charge sheet in respect of different vehicle and different accused.
10
material before the Court, this Court cannot come to a other conclusion. No doubt, R.W.1 has been examined before the Tribunal and no other witnesses have been examined and both the claimant as well as the Insurance Company have not examined the Investigating Officer who investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. All the documents came into existence after two months of the accident and it is the duty cast upon the claimant to substantiate his claim placing the material that this particular vehicle which is in question was involved in the accident and in order to substantiate the same, no material is found on record even after examining the documents meticulously. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal to come to a other conclusion and set aside the finding of the Trial Court answering issue No.1 as negative. Hence, the point No.1 is answered as negative.
following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal committed an error in concluding that involvement of the vehicle in the accident is doubtful.
Whether discrepancies in the FIR, medical records, and charge-sheet regarding the vehicle number and driver name justify interference by the High Court.
What order follows from the dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
CHIKKANNA
M/S RELIANCE GEN. INSURANCE CO. LTD.
SRI SURESH M
H.P. SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
