Mr. Prakasha K P Vs Mr. Girish G

MR. PRAKASHA K. P. S/O MR. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMPURA VILLAGE, K.SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 571 427

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. GUNASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MR. GIRISH G Digitally signed by S/O MR. GOVINDEGOWDA, MADHUSHREE H AGED MAJOR, Location: High RESIDING AT NO.632/3 Court of KYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE Karnataka KASABA HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT KARNATAKA – 571 427 (DRIVER OF CAR BEARNING NO.KA-10-M-1738)

¶14

MR. PAVANKUMAR S/O MR. GOVINDEGOWDA AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.333, KYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:28559 MFA No. 4936 of 2020

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

KASABA HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 571 427, (R.C OWNER OF CAR BEARING NO.KA-10-M-1738)

¶18

THE MANAGER

¶19

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., KANTHARAJ URS ROAD MYTHRI ORCADE, NEAR SARASWATHI TALKIES SARASWATHIPURAM MYSURU KARNATAKA – 570 009

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. SREENIVASAN M.Y., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. MANJULA N TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO a) ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1408/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA; b) GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER AND FURTHER RELIEFS’S AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶23

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:28559 MFA No. 4936 of 2020

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

Though this matter is listed for admission, with the

¶29

consent of learned counsel for the parties taken for final disposal.

¶30

This appeal is filed calling in question the Judgment and Award dated 09.08.2019, in MVC No.1408/2017 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, MACT, Srirangapatna, dismissing the claim petition.

¶31

The short point involved in this appeal is:

¶32

Whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the

¶33

claim petition only on the premise that there is a delay of 14 days in lodging the complaint?

¶34

Heard Sri.Gunashekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt.Manjula Tejaswi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 – Insurance Company.

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:28559 MFA No. 4936 of 2020

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Sri.Gunashekar, learned counsel taking this

¶38

Court through the judgment with all vehemence submitted that only on the premise that there is a delay of 14 days in lodging the complaint before the police and that the appellants have not properly explained the reason for not giving First Information Report after the discharge from the hospital, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

¶39

He has further submitted that, the criminal case in C.C.No.151/2017 has ended in acquittal, also one of the reason for the trial Court to suspect the conduct of the party which has resulted in dismissal of the petition.

¶40

He further submits that though there are two MVC petitions arising out of the same accident, as the other MVC is filed by the wife of the appellant herein and the injuries suffered by the claimant in MVC.No.1407/2017 are simple in nature, the claimant is not in appeal which cannot come in the way of the appellant who has sustained severe injuries, to seek for compensation and

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:28559 MFA No. 4936 of 2020

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

sought to allow the appeal and remand the matter for consideration of compensation for the injuries suffered.

¶44

Per contra, Smt.Manjula Tejaswi, learned counsel with all vehemence submits that there is an inordinate delay of 14 days in lodging the complaint and there is no explanation offered for the delay caused. The tribunal relying on the judgment of this Court GURAPPA VS. GOUDAPPA GOUDA AND ANOTHER¹ properly rejected the petition, as there is no proper explanation so also the criminal case ended in acquittal which also depicts on the conduct of the party and sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶45

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶46

perused the entire appeal papers along with trial Court records.

¶47

My answer to the above question is in negative for the following reasons:

¶48

1 2008 SCC ONLINE KAR 157

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:28559 MFA No. 4936 of 2020

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

The accident has occurred on 02.05.2017 at 9 am, in the accident, the appellant had suffered fracture of both bones right leg and undergone treatment as inpatient. As per the record he was admitted to the JSS Hospital Mysuru on the day of accident i.e., 02.07.2017 and discharged on 08.06.2017. He was continuously under treatment. The complaint was lodged by the nephew of the appellant on 16.05.2017, the complaint has clearly stated the averments regarding the delay in filing the complaint and when the police came to the hospital to record the statement of appellant, the appellant has stated that the cause for accident is the driver of the Maruti Alto Car, however, the police on premise that one Vinay has given an information to the police, who came after the accident, under a wrong notion that the appellant was found on the road in unconscious stage, presuming due to self- accident and in that perception he has given statement before the Doctors that there is a self-fall from the vehicle and in that view of the matter, the police have insisted the appellant

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:28559 MFA No. 4936 of 2020

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

to stick to the said statement and give statement in that regard. As the appellant was under the treatment, the nephew of the appellant after taking information from the appellant lodged a complaint 16.05.2017 giving the true facts.

¶56

A perusal of the complaint clearly shows that there is a proper explanation of delay, as well as the wrong information furnished by passer by which has resulted in showing self-fall in the medical records. The tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the matter. So far as the judgment in GURAPPA GOUDA supra the facts of the case before this Court was there was an earlier history of fall from steps, subsequently the same has been altered into a road traffic accident. In the present case on hand, the facts are different. As such, the principle laid down in the said case is not applicable to the case on hand.

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:28559 MFA No. 4936 of 2020

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Mere acquittal in the criminal case will not absolve the wrong doer from paying the compensation and the insurance company to indemnify the person who is the reason for the injuries, in the event, there is a valid insurance and all other conditions of the policies are complied with.

¶60

As could be seen from the records, the only reason for the Tribunal is the delay in lodging the complaint and the statement in the MLC wherein the passerby has made a statement of self-fall while admitting the appellant who was in unconscious condition. The Tribunal has missed this point from consideration, which has resulted in dismissal of the petition.

¶61

To buttress his arguments Sri.Gunashekar, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RAVI VS. BHADRINARAYANA AND OTHERS² and submitted that there could be variety

¶62

2 2011 SC 1226

¶63

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:28559 MFA No. 4936 of 2020

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons. Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court to the case on hand there is satisfactory explanation by the nephew of the appellant while lodging the complaint after 14 days, the reason being the appellant was unconscious and was admitted to the hospital and under constant treatment. The discharge summary clearly shows that he was discharged only on 08.06.2017. In that view of the matter, the findings of the tribunal there is delay in lodging the complaint which is fatal and same is not properly explained is misplaced. For the foregoing reasons, I answer the point for consideration in negative and in favour of appellant. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass the following order:

¶66

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:28559 MFA No. 4936 of 2020

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

i. The appeal is allowed .

¶69

ii. The judgment and award dated 09.08.2019 passed in MVC No. 1408/2017 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, MACT, Srirangapatna is hereby set-aside.

¶70

iii. The matter is remanded and restored on the file of the Tribunal for consideration of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by the appellant after affording proper opportunity to the both the parties.

¶71

iv. Keeping in mind the pendency of the cases before the tribunal, the tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. Both the parties are directed to co-operate with the trial without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.

¶72