Dismissed

Kareppa S/O Yallappa Hasare v. Basappa Appanna Banashankari

Karnataka HC25 Jan 2024MFA/100459/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, disposed of a miscellaneous first appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appeal challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order admitting no liability was dismissed as the claimant failed to produce the Medical Accidents Report (MLC) register despite alleging discrepancies in medical dates. The Tribunal correctly dismissed the clai

What did the court decide?

Admission of the miscellaneous first appeal was declined, and the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Kareppa S/O Yallappa Hasare Vs Basappa Appanna… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:1921 MFA No. 100459 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.100459 OF 2016

¶8

(MV-I)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

KAREPPA S/O. YALLAPPA HASARE AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE & COOLIE, R/O: H.NO.295, BHIRAPPAN MADDI, ALAKANUR, TQ. RAIBAG, BELAGAVI.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SMT. SHRUTI A.NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

BASAPPA APPANNA BANASHANKARI

¶15

AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O: AT/POST: SIDDAPUR, TQ. RAIBAG, BELAGAVI.

¶16

Digitally signed by SAMREEN SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR AYUB Date: DESHNUR 2024.02.09 17:11:14 +0530

¶17

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, 1568, MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI-01.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. SANTOSH S.HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. R.R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.08.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.1506/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 166 OF M.V.ACT.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC-D:1921 MFA No. 100459 of 2016

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Heard Miss.Shruti A. Neelopant, advocate representing Sri Shriharsh A. Neelopant, advocate for appellant and Sri Santosh S. Hattikatagi, advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri R.R.Mane, advocate for respondent No.2.

¶26

Unsuccessful claimant is before this Court challenging the validity of the judgment and award dated 01.08.2015 passed in MVC No.1506/2013 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi.

¶27

Facts in brief which are necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:

¶28

Claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation in respect of accidental injuries said to have occurred on 17.05.2013 at about 2.30 pm involving a Hero Honda Splendor motor bike bearing registration No.KA-23/EA-7822.

¶29

Claim petition was resisted by filing necessary objections by the Insurance Company denying the claim petition averments in toto.

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:1921 MFA No. 100459 of 2016

¶31

The Tribunal, after raising necessary issues, recorded the evidence of claimant and two doctors. Claimant has placed on record 17 documentary evidence marked at Exs.P.1 to 17. On behalf of the respondents, insurance policy is marked as Ex.R.1.

¶32

¶33

The Tribunal, on cumulative analysis of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the claim petition holding that there is serious discrepancy as to the very date of accident, inasmuch as in the wound certificate marked at Ex.P.5, there is a clear mention that the accident has occurred on 07.05.2013 at about 2.30 pm. The said history was recorded by Dr.Sanjeev Patil who issued Ex.P.5 at Patil Hospital, Harugeri.

¶34

Dr.Sanjeev Patil is examined as P.W.2 before Tribunal. In his oral evidence, he has admitted that he has issued Ex.P.5. He also admitted that he has issued discharge summary on 30.05.2013 and wrongly mentioned the discharge summary date as 03.05.2013. So also, he has deposed that he has wrongly mentioned the date of accident as 07.05.2013 instead of 17.05.2013.

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:1921 MFA No. 100459 of 2016

¶36

In his cross-examination, he admits that the date of accident in the history column is mentioned as per the details furnished by the injured or the persons who accompanies the injured. He admits that there is a register of patients maintained in his hospital and MLC register of Kareppa/claimant shows that he got admitted to the hosptial on 17.05.2013. However, he admits that he is duty bound to intimate the jurisdictional police regarding the persons who come for treatment with the history of road traffic accident. He denied that MLC register that has been maintained by him is not in chronological order and only with an intention to help the claimant, he has given false evidence. The MLC register is not even marked on behalf of the claimant.

¶37

Under such circumstances, there is a serious doubt and therefore, the Tribunal rejected the claim petition.

¶38

Being aggrieved by the same, claimant is in appeal.

¶39

Miss.Shruthi A Neelopant, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant vehemently contended that the Tribunal has not properly considered the material evidence on record and

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:1921 MFA No. 100459 of 2016

¶41

wrongly dismissed the claim petition resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the appeal.

¶42

Per contra, Sri Santosh S. Hattikatagi, learned counsel for respondent No.1/owner of the motor cycle and Sri R.R.Mane, learned counsel for the Insurance Company of the motor bike supported the impugned judgment and award by contending that the very claimant himself is the complainant and the material evidence placed on record do not tally with each other. While the wound certificate marked at Ex.P.5 shows that the accident occurred on 07.05.2013, the discharge summary shows that date of admission to the hospital is 17.05.2013, but discharge summary is dated 03.05.2013.

¶43

The MLC register is not even marked before the Court to substantiate as to what is the exact date on which the injured got admission in the hospital of P.W.2. Further, the consent form said to have been taken for the surgery is totally blank.

¶44

In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the parties, this Court perused the material on record including the Trial Court records placed on record, meticulously.

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:1921 MFA No. 100459 of 2016

¶46

On such perusal of material on record, though there is extensive cross-examination with regard to the alleged MLC register said to have been maintained by P.W.2 in the hospital, the same is not even produced and marked as an exhibit before the Tribunal.

¶47

What prevented the advocate for claimant to rely upon MLC register to mark the same in his examination-in-chief is not forthcoming. The Tribunal also did not deem it fit to get the MLC register marked, though there is extensive crossexamination as to the entries found in the MLC register.

¶48

Thus, in the absence of the MLC register being placed on record, what is to be looked into is the wound certificate marked at Ex.P.5, wherein the date of accident is mentioned as 07.05.2013. The discharge summary is dated 03.05.2013. P.W.2 has given explanation that it is a mistake and, it should have been 30.05.2013. The oral evidence of P.W.2 would go to show that there are number of mistakes committed by him who is a Doctor, while issuing the discharge summary. How can there be number of mistakes while issuing Ex.P.8 is a question that has

¶49

remained unanswered. There are no supportive documents produced to support the contents of discharge

¶50

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:1921 MFA No. 100459 of 2016

¶51

summary marked at Ex.P.8. The hospital records are the primary documents based on which Ex.P.8 is prepared. No such primary records are placed on record especially when Ex.P.8 is questioned seriously by the respondents.

¶52

Under such circumstances, the Tribunal appreciating the

¶53

case of the claimant in its proper perspective has rightly dismissed the claim petition holding that the claimant has failed to prove that he has sustained accidental injuries involving the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-23/EA-7822.

¶54

Even on re-appreciation of the material on record, this

¶55

Court does not find any good grounds to admit the appeal for further consideration.

¶56

Accordingly, the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) Admission declined.

¶59

(ii) Appeal dismissed.

¶60

(iii) No order as to costs.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Kareppa S/O Yallappa Hasare v. Basappa Appanna Banashankari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kareppa S/O Yallappa Hasare v. Basappa Appanna Banashankari

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

Smt Savitri W/O Bhimappa Devihosur Vs Shri Mohammed Sadath S/O Mohammed Amjad

Smt. Faridabanu W/O. Imtiyaz Kerimani Vs Mr. Imtiyaz S/O. Akbar

The Manager, Sriram General Vs Shabbhirahamad S/O. Mahmad Haneef Tekade

Smt. Vasanta W/O Pradeep S Vs Shri Pradeep S Alias Shadaksharapap Sondooru

Manikantha S/O Ningappa Wali Vs Hasanasab Appalall Mulla

Annappa Appasab Mokashi Vs the S.L.A.O. Hippargi Dam Project