Dismissed

Andappa S/O. Basappa Naganur @ Nidagundi v. Falvia Carlo W/O. Vincent Prakash Carlo

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2024MFA/20587/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant injured by hot coal tar while road-working appealed dismissal of his motor accident claim. The High Court found discrepancies in the complaint (TATA vs Mahindra pick-up), tampered vehicle number, no damage to the vehicle, and only burn injuries, and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

None; appeal dismissed, no order as to costs.

Andappa S/O. Basappa Naganur @ Nidagundi Vs Falvia… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2398 MFA No. 20587 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.20587 OF 2012 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ANDAPPA S/O. BASAPPA NAGANUR @ NIDAGUNDI, AGE: 54 YRS, OCC: COOLIE NOW NIL, R/AT SAJJAPUR, TQ: RON NOW R/AT: MUTTALAGERI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA SAJJAN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. FALVIA CARLO W/O. VINCENT PRAKASH CARLO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE, R/AT: VANCY VILLA D’CUNA, COMPOND, BAJJODI MAROLI ROAD, MANGALORE.

¶14

Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
SAROJA HANGARAKI
HANGARAKI Date:
2024.02.13
16:06:23
+0530

¶15

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, IFFCO TOKOYO INSURANCE CO. LTD., 3^RD FLOOR, LALBAGH TOWER, MG ROAD, MANGALORE, DK.

¶16

(BY SRI. R.R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 SERVED)

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:09.03.2011 PASSED IN MVC.NO.588/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER MACT-VIII, BADAMI, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PEITTION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2398 MFA No. 20587 of 2012

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Heard Sri.Siddappa Sajjan, learned counsel for the

¶23

appellant and Sri.R.R.Mane, learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company.

¶24

Unsuccessful claimant is before this Court challenging the validity of judgment and award passed in MVC No.588/2008 dated 09.03.2011 on the file of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Badami.

¶25

Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of this case are as under:

¶26

3.1 A claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act contending that on 20.12.2007, the claimant along with other co-labourers were putting coal tar to the road. When he was standing by the side of road holding bucket of hot coal tar, a Mahindra pick-up vehicle bearing No.KA-19/B-8355 came in a high speed and rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant, whereby he fell down and bucket of hot coal tar

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2398 MFA No. 20587 of 2012

¶28

also fell on his body, whereby he got injured. He was

¶29

taken to hospital and treated there.

¶30

3.2 Claim petition was resisted by the Insurance

¶31

Company by filing a detailed written statement including involvement of vehicle bearing No.KA-19/B-8355.

¶32

3.3 Tribunal raised following issues.

¶33

whether the petitioner proves that he had sustained injuries in an accident occurred on 20.12.2007 at about 9.00 hours near Ambika Nagar Katte, panjimogaru Mangalore about 1 KM west of kavoor police station due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.KA.19/B8355 (Mahindra pick up) by its driver ?

¶34

whether the respondent No.2 proves that the driver of the vehicle had not possessed valid driving licence on the alleged date of accident ?

¶35

Is petitioner entitled for compensation ? If so, from whom and what extent ?

¶36

To what order or award

¶37

3.4 In order to prove the case of claimant, he got

¶38

examined himself as PW.1. He placed on record 62 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to

¶39

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2398 MFA No. 20587 of 2012

¶40

P.62. There was no evidence placed record either oral or

¶41

documentary on behalf of respondents.

¶42

3.5 Tribunal after considering the material evidence

¶43

placed on record by the claimant, dismissed the claim petition by holding that there is no involvement of vehicle bearing No.KA-19/B-8355 in the accident.

¶44

Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the claimant has preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:

¶45

“i. The Judgment and award passed by the Court below in so far as it relates to quantum of compensation is contrary to law and facts of the case.

¶46

ii. The Court below has erred in awarding compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant /appellant in the accident with occurred on 07/04/2008.

¶47

iii. The Court below failed to consider the pledging and evidence on record and oral and documentary evidence on record.

¶48

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2398 MFA No. 20587 of 2012

¶49

iv. It is submits that the appellant spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- for medical expenditure, but court below erred in awarding compensation towards medical expenses.

¶50

v. It is submits that appellant sustained grievous Burnt injuries 35% of the whole body and grievous injuries the all over the body.

¶51

vi. The Court below is erred in awarding compensation of towards future loss income and loss of income during treatment.

¶52

vii. It is submitted that the court below erred in awarding compensation towards conveyance, attendance charges and special diet and award interest as claimed by the appellant.

¶53

viii. That having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant. Court below erred in dismiss the appeal that the appellant was not proved the alleged accident. Hence the dismiss the claim petition and directing the appellant to go before workman compensation commissioner. It is liable to be set aside.”

¶54

Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal

¶55

memorandum, Sri.Siddappa Sajjan learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has grossly erred in

¶56

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2398 MFA No. 20587 of 2012

¶57

dismissing the claim petition by improperly appreciating the material evidence on record resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the appeal.

¶58

He pointed out that the proof that is required to be adduced before the Tribunal is not strict proof like a criminal case and Court is required to assess the evidentiary value of material evidence on record by preponderance of possibilities and sought for allowing the appeal.

¶59

Per contra, learned counsel for Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment by contending that there is clear overwriting in the complaint itself in inserting the vehicle number as bearing No.KA-19/B-8355. But though in the claim petition it has been mentioned as Mahindra pick-up van, in the complaint itself it has been stated that as it is TATA pick-up van.

¶60

The discrepancy in mentioning the vehicle name

¶61

itself is clear enough to show that there is false implication

¶62

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2398 MFA No. 20587 of 2012

¶63

of vehicle bearing No.KA-19/B-8355 in the case and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶64

Further, IMV report does not show any damage to the vehicle nor any traces of hot coal tar spread on the vehicle. Absence of coal tar on the vehicle shows that the alleged accident as is contended by the claimant has not taken place and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶65

In view of the rival contentions of the parties,

¶66

this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶67

On such perusal of material on record, in the complaint itself there is clear mention that the alleged vehicle involved in the accident is TATA pick-up van; whereas vehicle bearing No.KA-19/B-8355 is a Mahindra pick-up van. In the mahazar also, what has been seized is Mahindra pick up van.

¶68

How TATA pick-up van would become a Mahindra pick-up van is the question that remains unanswered on behalf of claimant. Further, in the

¶69

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2398 MFA No. 20587 of 2012

¶70

compliant, it is seen that the vehicle number is tampered. Same is visible to a naked eye. Perhaps the Mahindra pickup van possessed proper insurance and therefore, there is possibility of implanting said vehicle in the incident.

¶71

Further, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondent, no injury has taken place in the alleged accident to the claimant other than burn injuries. Burn injuries are on account of spilling of hot coal tar. If a Mahindra pick-up van or a TATA pick-up van has dashed against the claimant that too with a very high speed as is contended, the injured would have definitely fallen down on the road and sustained at least some blood injuries on his body.

¶72

Wound certificate does not indicate any blood injury on the body of the claimant except the burn injuries.

¶73

Further, the photographs marked at Ex.P.61 and Ex.P.62 does not indicate any blood injuries on the body of the claimant except the burn injury.

¶74

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2398 MFA No. 20587 of 2012

¶75

Therefore, the Tribunal doubted the very

¶76

accident itself involving vehicle bearing No.KA-19/B-8355.

¶77

It is also pertinent to note that no other eyewitness is examined to advance the case of claimant. Admittedly, the claim petition averments show that he was holding hot coal tar for the purpose of repairing the road along with co-labourers.

¶78

Nothing prevented the claimant either to

¶79

examine the contractor or co-labourers to establish the accident. Therefore, the material evidence on record has been rightly appreciated by the Tribunal and dismissed the claim petition.

¶80

Even after re-appreciation of material evidence on record in the light of the appeal grounds, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity in recording a finding that the claimant has failed to establish that he has sustained injuries found on his body as per the wound certificate by involvement of vehicle bearing No.KA-19/B8355.

¶81

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2398 MFA No. 20587 of 2012

¶82

In view of the foregoing discussion, following

¶83

order is passed:

¶84

ORDER

¶85

(i) Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed.

¶86

(ii) No order as to costs.

¶87

Sd/JUDGE

¶88

SH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Andappa S/O. Basappa Naganur @ Nidagundi v. Falvia Carlo W/O. Vincent Prakash Carlo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andappa S/O. Basappa Naganur @ Nidagundi v. Falvia Carlo W/O. Vincent Prakash Carlo

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. Shantavva W/O. Basappa Kamatad Vs the Divisional Manager

Shri.Dhaku Mahadev Jadhav, Vs Shri.Indrakumar Parashuram Majukar

Gangamma W/O. Channappa Banakar Vs Maruti Doni S/O. Lakshmappa

Shri Maheshwar S/O. Veerasangayya Hiremath Vs Shri. Chidananda S/O. Durgundayya Hiremath

Anusuya W/O. Gajanan Badiger Vs Smt. Basavva W/O. Basavantappa Mestri Alias Badiger

The Divisional Manager Vs Noor Ahammed S/O Jaffar Vali