Dismissed

Mr. Dharnappa Shetty v. Mr. Thimmappa Poojary

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2022MFA/1206/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed an appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's judgment denying compensation. The Tribunal rejected the claimant's assertion that he was a pedestrian hit by a motorcycle, relying on initial hospital records stating the claimant was the rider who skidded and fell. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the evidence supported the conclusion o

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed challenging the judgment and award dismissing the compensation claim is dismissed.

Mr. Dharnappa Shetty Vs Mr… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

M.F.A.NO.1206/2015 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. DHARNAPPA SHETTY S/O LATE SHEENA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT SHRI NIDHI AJJI BAKIYARU, SIDDAKATTE, SANGABETTU VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK D.K. DISTRICT-574 219. … APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

1 . MR. THIMMAPPA POOJARY S/O DEJAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT ARAMBODY HOUSE ARABODY VILLAGE & POST BELTHANGADY TALUK D.K.574 212

¶11

2 . NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., GANESH BUILDING, II FLOOR BANTWAL CROSS ROAD BANTWAL TALUK D.K. DISTRICT-574 219. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. ... RESPONDENTS

¶12

(BY SRI ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED)

¶13

¶14

THIS M.F.A., IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.10.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.742/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT-II, D.K., MANGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶15

THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

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

¶18

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶19

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 09.10.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.742/2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, D.K., Mangaluru (‘the Tribunal’ for short).

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before

¶23

the Tribunal is that he was a pedestrian. On 30.12.2011, the rider of the motorcycle driven the same in a rash and negligent manner, came to the extreme left side of the road and dashed to the petitioner and caused the accident. Due to the impact, he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Vijaya Clinic Hospital, Mangaluru, wherein, he was treated as inpatient till 15.01.2012.

¶24

In pursuance of the claim petition, the Insurance Company has filed the written statement denying the accident and there was no any intimation of the alleged accident and the contention of the claimant is that he was a pedestrian was denied in the written statement.

¶25

The claimant in support of his claim, he examined

¶26

himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P13. On the other hand, the respondents have not led any evidence. However, got marked the document as Ex.R1 – Copy of Policy.

¶27

¶28

The Tribunal after considering both oral and

¶29

documentary evidence placed on record, particularly, document of Ex.P12 – casesheet, came to the conclusion that at the first instance the injured when he was taken to the hospital, he has given the history that it was a fall from bike. When the bike got skid in the evening he got injuries himself. Taking note of this fact came to the conclusion that it is a case of making a false claim to make the wrongful gain. Hence, dismissed the claim petition.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

¶31

would submit that first of all the respondents have not led any evidence and in the document Ex.P12, it is mentioned that he was conscious but drowsy, but he has given the history as RTA. The learned counsel also would submit that the Wound Certificate – Ex.P3 was issued by the Vijaya Clinic discloses that ‘RTA at Siddakatte on 30.12.2011’. Apart from that, the learned counsel also would submit that in terms of Ex.P9-Discharge Summary, wherein also it is mentioned the history as ‘RTA. Fall due to bike accident.’ The learned counsel referring to Ex.P9 would submit that the involvement of the bike in the accident,

¶32

¶33

the claimant was a pedestrian and the bike hit the claimant, the same had not been considered by the Tribunal while considering the material on record. The learned counsel also would submit that the document of Ex.P12, has not been proved. Hence, the Tribunal has committed an error. The learned counsel also would submit that the Police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet, the same has not been questioned.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal while considering the material on record, particularly, taken note of the document – Ex.P12, wherein, the history was given that the claimant himself was injured when the motorcycle got skid and immediately after the accident he was taken to the hospital and he was conscious at that time. Apart from that, the document – IMV report clearly discloses that the motorcycle was also damaged, the same is on account of the motorcycle skid, and he had fallen. No doubt, the history is mentioned as RTA as contended by the appellant’s counsel and the Insurance Company is also not disputing that it is an accident. But the accident is on account of he got skid from the motorcycle or he

¶35

¶36

sustained injuries himself and he himself was the rider of the motorcycle. In view of the history given by him in the hospital, a question arose whether the case has been twisted in order to make a wrongful gain that he was a pedestrian. Hence, the Tribunal rightly appreciated the material available on record and it does not require any interference of this Court.

¶37

Having heard the arguments of the respective counsel and on perusal of the grounds urged in the appeal and the materials available on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:

¶38

(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition in coming to the conclusion that he himself is a rider and he got skid from the motorcycle and he sustained the injury himself and whether it requires an interference of this Court?

¶39

(ii) What order?

¶40

Point No.(i):

¶41

Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal

¶42

of the material available on record, no doubt, only P.W.1 has been examined before the Tribunal and no other witnesses have

¶43

¶44

been examined. The Insurance Company also not examined any of the witnesses. P.W.1 in his evidence, he reiterates the contents of the claim petition that he was a pedestrian. He was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that his son has not sustained any injury. But his explanation is that at his instance he claims that his son took him to the hospital. He admits that the son has given the complaint after seven days of the incident. It is suggested that the motorcycle rider has not caused any accident and the same was denied. It is suggested that he himself fell down and sustained the injuries, the same is denied. The further suggestion was made that in order to make the claim, a false case has been registered and the same has been denied.

¶45

Having considered the evidence available on record

¶46

i.e., oral evidence, it is his claim that he was proceeding as pedestrian. In the cross-examination he admits that his son though along with him he has not sustained any injuries. However, he has given an explanation that he was at a distance. But in the cross-examination, he categorically admits that his son has given the complaint after seven days and also a specific

¶47

¶48

suggestion was made that he has not sustained any injury when the rider of the motorcycle dashed against him and the said suggestion was denied. A further suggestion was made that he only fell down and sustained the injuries, the same was also denied. The further suggestion was made that he has filed a false case in order to get compensation. Hence, the very contention is that in the cross-examination of P.W.1 not suggested that he has fell down and sustained injury cannot be accepted. The Insurance Company disputed the very accident by suggesting the witness - P.W.1. Apart from that, the document – Ex.P12, inpatient records which has been relied upon by the Tribunal discloses that the injured was taken to the hospital on the same day, wherein, it is mentioned that he was conscious but drowsy, but history was given as RTA. The fact that the history was given as RTA, is found in the Vijaya Clinic, inpatient records as well as in the Wound Certificate and also in the Discharge Summary. It is not the case of the Insurance Company that it is not an accident. But it is an accident but the claim was that he was only a pedestrian is disputed. It is contended in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that he fell down and sustained injuries and the document – Ex.P12, wherein,

¶49

¶50

history was given. It is very clear that the ‘Patient was traveling in a bike and when he got skid today evening and got injured himself.’ and this statement which was given at the time of admission has not been rebutted by examining any of the witnesses that the said history was given by mistake. No explanation on the part of the injured with regard to the history given at the first instance. Merely because the counsel relies upon the document of mentioning the same as RTA, cannot substantiate the contention of the claimant. The fact that the RTA is also not in dispute but the fact that he was a pedestrian at the time of the accident; no material has been placed before the Court. The learned counsel mainly relies upon the complaint and also the charge-sheet filed by the Police. The fact that the accident was occurred on 30.12.2011 and a complaint was given 07.01.2012 through the son of the injured and there was a delay of 8 days in lodging the complaint and the complainant was along with him and not sustained any injury. Also the fact is that the son of the injured himself took the injured to the Hospital and there was no any impediment for him to lodge a complaint immediately after the accident. Though the injured was in the hospital till 15.01.2012, no explanation for non-filing of

¶51

¶52

complaint immediately after the accident. Hence, it is clear that the facts are twisted that he was a pedestrian and made a false claim and the Tribunal taking into note of all these oral and documentary evidence placed on record rightly came to the conclusion that the facts of the case has been twisted that he was a pedestrian and he himself fell down from the motorcycle as is evident from the immediate records of the hospital viz., casesheet, which is marked as Ex.P12, the same is not explained by the claimant. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal to come to the conclusion that the Tribunal has committed an error.

¶53

Point No.(ii):

¶54

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶55

following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

The appeal is dismissed.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

cp*

Mr. Dharnappa Shetty v. Mr. Thimmappa Poojary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Dharnappa Shetty v. Mr. Thimmappa Poojary

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

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs K R Saraswathamma

P Manu Vs Mohd Mahamood Ali Khan

Nawaz Baig Vs State by Kolar Women Police

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt Nagalakshmi

M/S Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd, Vs Kiran @ Kirankumar

The Branch Manager Vs Mahamed Sami @ Mahamed Samiulla