The appellant challenged the MACT's dismissal of her motor accident claim. The High Court upheld the dismissal, noting a significant delay between the alleged accident date and the claimant's hospital admission, which rendered the claim not genuine.
None; Appeal 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.
NC: 2024:KHC:12383 MFA No. 7039 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7039 OF 2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SMT.GANGAMMA W/O LATE GOLLARAHALLI PARSHURAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O IGOOR VILLAGE & POST, DAVANAGERE-577 002.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. V.MAHESHA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2024:KHC:12383 MFA No. 7039 of 2013
MALLIKARAJUNA COMPLEX, PRAVASIMANDIR ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577 002.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SATHISH KUMAR., ADVOCATE R1; SRI. S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:29.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1027/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, DAVANAGERE.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.V.Mahesha., learned counsel on behalf of
Sri.Hanumanthappa.S., for the appellant and Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand., learned counsel for respondent No.3 have appeared in person.
In response to the notice, respondents appeared through their counsel and filed separate written statement denying the petition averments. Among other grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:29.04.2013 dismissed the claim petition. It is this Judgment that is called into question in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of appeal.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company justified the Judgment of the Tribunal. Counsel submits that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the appeal papers and also the records with utmost care.
the 23rd day of May 2011. The complaint was given by her husband Parshuramappa on the 24th day of May 2011. In the complaint he has stated that the accident occurred on the 23rd day of May 2011 and his wife sustained injuries. However, the material evidence on record i.e., Ex.P.5 - Wound Certificate and the history sheet depicts otherwise. Furthermore, PW2 - Dr.Palakshaiah in his cross-examination deposed that the claimant was admitted to the hospital on the 24th day of May 2011 at 4:15 pm. It is pivotal to note that the accident appears to have occurred on the 23rd day of May 2011, however the claimant was admitted to the hospital only on the 24th day of May 2011.
An attempt was made on behalf of the claimant that due to the oral assurance by the rider of the offending vehicle, she was not admitted to the hospital on the very same day. The said contention cannot be accepted. The reason is simple. There is nothing on record to prove the alleged assurance made by the rider of the offending vehicle. It's a commonsense that as and when an accident occurs and a person sustains grievous injuries, the first and foremost step that would be taken by the injured is to visit the hospital either for first aid or treatment.
NC: 2024:KHC:12383 MFA No. 7039 of 2013
In the present case, though the accident occurred on the 23rd day of May 2011, the injured was admitted to the hospital only on the 24th day of May 2011. Furthermore, the Tribunal extenso referred to the material on record and concluded that it is not a genuine case. In my view, the conclusion so arrived at by the Tribunal is just and proper.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's dismissal of the claim petition was justified given the discrepancy between the alleged accident date and hospital admission date.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE GOLLARAHALLI PARSHURAMAPPA
MANJUNATHA.V S/O VEERABHADRAPPA.K
G.S. YELLAPPA S/O SANNABASAPPA
THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
JYOTI MULIMANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
