IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM BETWEEN:
HARISH MFA NO.8374 OF 2014 (MV-I) S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT HOSAMANE, 6TH CROSS, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
(BY SRI N.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI R.B.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE ) AND:
1. S.N. RAJASHEKARAPPA S/O S.NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT KRISHNI NAGARA, ...APPELLANT 2ND MAIN ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
2. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. HARSHA COMPLEX, B.H.ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.RAMACHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:16.06.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.177/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MACT, SHIMOGA, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The claimant in MVC.No.177/2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivamogga, has come up in this appeal impugning the judgment and award dated 16.06.2014 in dismissing the claim petition for compensation.
2. The averments made in the claim petition would indicate that on 29.10.2011 at about 2.00 p.m., when the claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-14-V-9969, the same was involved in an accident with another motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA- 14-Q-5638 resulting in injuries to the claimant. It is in this background, claim petition was filed by him claiming compensation for the injuries suffered in the said accident, wherein defence taken by the first respondent rider of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-14- Q-5638 is that the accident resulting in injuries to the claimant was caused by the claimant himself due to his rash and negligent riding as could be seen from the charge sheet which is filed by the police against the claimant. Therefore, when the claimant himself being tortfeasor, he is not entitled to seek compensation from the owner of the other vehicle involved in the accident who was the victim due to rash and negligent riding of the vehicle by the claimant. It is in this background, the claim petition filed by the claimant was dismissed by judgment and award dated 16.06.2014 which is challenged in this appeal.
3. Perused the lower court records. The appellant/claimant has filed claim petition by contending that he was proceeding on a bike bearing Reg.No.KA-14-V-9969 on 29.10.2011 near Navule Channel and at that time, the respondent No.1 being the owner-cum-rider of bike bearing Reg.No.KA-14-Q- 5638 came in a rash and negligent manner from the hind side and dashed against the bike on which the appellant was proceeding. However, during trial, it is elicited in cross-examination of the appellant that in fact it was his friend Anand who was riding the bike bearing Reg.No.KA-14-V-9969 on which the appellant was a pillion rider.
4. It is also elicited in the cross-examination that in fact charge sheet is filed against his friend. On a complaint lodged by the rider-cum-owner of the offending bike bearing Reg.No.KA-14-Q-5638 against whom the present claim petition is filed. The appellant/claimant though has produced the charge sheet, the same is not at all marked. The Tribunal on examining the evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant is not on account of rash and negligent riding of the first respondent. The appellant/claimant has suppressed the true facts and has come up with a false claim petition. Accordingly, Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on this ground.
5. When the entire lower court records is looked into, it clearly discloses that no grounds are made out by the appellant herein to maintain the claim petition against the respondent No.1 for the act of rash and negligent riding by the claimant himself resulting in injuries.
6. In that view of the matter, the findings of the Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition appears to be just and proper and based on facts and law. Hence, the same cannot be interfered in this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE CA