The High Court of Karnataka dismissed an appeal by a motor accident claimant challenging the tribunal's award. The court upheld the dismissal, ruling that the petitioner failed to prove the involvement of the specific offending vehicle due to discrepancies between the initial complaint registration number and the vehicle actually charge-sheeted.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA NO. 4018 OF 2013 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. BINU S/O MARKOSE AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT 'KANNAMATTOM HOUSE' AIRAPURA POST, KILIKULAM ERNAKULAM DIST. KERALA STATE - 546 301 … APPELLANT
(BY SRI.K.PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed by MALA K N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADV. FOR R2; R1 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.11.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.254/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
NC: 2024:KHC:11152 MFA No. 4018 of 2013
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 31.01.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and award dated 22.11.2012 in M.V.C.No.254/2009 passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Udupi ('the Tribunal' for short).
NC: 2024:KHC:11152 MFA No. 4018 of 2013
hospitalization from 09.04.2008 to 15.04.2008 and thereafter at M.O.S.C. Medical College and Hospital, Kolenchery, Ernakulam, Kerala, he approached the Tribunal for grant of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Claim was opposed by the respondents denying the involvement of the vehicle in question and liability on part of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:
NC: 2024:KHC:11152 MFA No. 4018 of 2013
5) What order or award?
3.1. To explain the accident and his entitlement
to claim the compensation, the petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and marked 9 documents as per Exs.P1 to P9. The Tribunal after hearing both
sides, answered issues No.1 and 4 in the negative and No.2 and 3 in the affirmative; while answering issue No.5, dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this appeal on various grounds.
Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
petitioner that the petitioner was seriously injured, he was under hospitalization at K.M.C. Hospital, Manipal for a period of 7 days and at M.O.S.C.
NC: 2024:KHC:11152 MFA No. 4018 of 2013
Medical College and Hospital, Ernakulam for a period of 20 days. He was not aware of the complaint filed
to the Police; the rider of the motor cycle Sri. Eldho Kuriakose has filed the complaint to the Police; the motor cycle which caused the accident was KA-20/R7334; due to mistake of the vehicle number in the complaint made by the rider Eldho, it is mentioned as 'KA-20/H-1121'. After investigation, the Police have correctly charge sheeted against offending motor cycle. In spite of sufficient evidence is placed before the Tribunal, the claim is rejected unreasonably and he sought for interference.
NC: 2024:KHC:11152 MFA No. 4018 of 2013
effect that the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-20/R7334 has caused the accident, but the charge sheet
was filed against the said vehicle without any evidence. Petitioner is the pillion rider of the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-25/W-8426 and complainant is the rider. Both of them knew about the registration number of the offending motor cycle. When the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-20/H-1121 is mentioned in the complaint, for the reason of it did not carry valid insurance, motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-20/R-7334 is replaced. The petitioner has suppressed the material fact before the Tribunal; accident is not proved independently. Claim petition filed by the rider of the motor cycle in M.V.C.No.340/2009 was already dismissed, therefore the Tribunal is right in rejecting the claim of the petitioner and she supported the impugned judgment.
NC: 2024:KHC:11152 MFA No. 4018 of 2013
is that irrespective of the Police Investigation papers, it is the duty on part of the petitioner to prove the accident and involvement of the vehicle in order to claim compensation. Rider of the motor cycle has filed the complaint on 09.04.2008 that motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-20/H-1121 has caused the accident. The accident took place at 10:45 pm. There are no eye witnesses to the accident. For the reason of the same in the complaint, the registration number of the motor cycle is mentioned as 'KA20/H-1121'.
NC: 2024:KHC:11152 MFA No. 4018 of 2013
materials to establish the accident. Before the Tribunal, no eye witnesses are examined and the evidence of the Investigating Officer is not available to explain that the offending motor cycle is 'KA20/R-7334'. F.I.R. is not produced before the Tribunal, so also the motor vehicle inspection report. It is pertinent to note that the rider of the motor
cycle has also filed claim petition in M.V.C.No.340/2009 under similar circumstances and it came to be dismissed. In spite of dismissal of the said claim petition, the petitioner did not choose to place any material.
NC: 2024:KHC:11152 MFA No. 4018 of 2013
the R.T.A. is not furnished to the hospital. The inpatient case sheet pertains to the petitioner is also made available and it did disclose that the history of R.T.A. and its details are not furnished. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not aware of the registration number of the offending motor cycle. He ought to have examined the relevant witness to explain the accident.
NC: 2024:KHC:11152 MFA No. 4018 of 2013
disbelieving the version of the petitioner. No material is available that the petitioner in M.V.C.No.340/2009 has questioned the accident and
the finding of the Tribunal was reversed by the Appellate Court. There is material irregularities in the evidence of the petitioner and there is no satisfactory material to explain the involvement of motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-20/R-7334 in the accident. Hence, the finding recorded by the Tribunal in dismissing the claim is just and proper and does not call for interference. Hence, the appeal
is devoid of merits, in the result, the following:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
PA CT:HS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the high court should interfere with the tribunal's dismissal of the compensation claim due to discrepancies in the petitioner's version of the accident vehicle registration number.
Whether the petitioner adequately proved the involvement of the specific motorcycle bearing the correct registration number in the accident.
Whether the refusal to grant compensation was justified based on the lack of satisfactory material to establish the accident facts independently.
Sri. Binu s/o Markose
Sri. Wilson s/o Piyus Wilson Desa
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
T.G. Shivashankare Gowda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
