IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN MFA No.3535/2017 (MV) BETWEEN JAYAPAL @ JAYAPAL REDDY S/O. MUNISWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49, R/O NO.69, 2ND CROSS, BALAJI LAYOUT, UTTARAHALLI, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, BANGALORE-78, ALSO AT:
NO.255/1, SHIVASHAKTHI NAGAR CHUNCHGHATTA, BANGALORE-62. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI A. S. GIRISH, ADV.) AND:
1. SRI GOPI G S/O. PADMANABHA NAIDU, R/O. 4262, 65TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, K. S. LAYOUT, BANGALORE-78.
(OWNER OF BIKE BEARING NO.KA-05-HJ-3102) 2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.121, THE ESTATE BUILDING, 9TH FLOOR, DICKSON ROAD, BANGALORE-01.
(INSURER OF MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO.KA-05-HJ-3102) ... RESPONDENTS THIS MFA FILED IS UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1452/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER MACT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :
JUDGMENT The appellant has challenged the legality of the award dated 01.03.2017, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, (SCCH-15), whereby, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 15.01.2016, around 6.30 p.m., while the appellant was riding his two wheeler, bearing No.KA-05/HK-9686, along with his wife, on the Vasanthapura Main Road, when they reached near KEB Compound, and while the appellant’s two wheeler was standing on the extreme left side of the road in order to take U-turn, suddenly, a Suzuki Access, bearing registration No.KA-05/HJ-3102, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came and hit the appellant’s vehicle from the back.
Due to the impact, the appellant suffered grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Samarthan Hospital; thereafter, he was shifted to Deepak Hospital where he underwent medical treatment. Having recovered from the accident, the appellant filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to support his claim petition, the appellant examined himself as PW.1, and Dr. Naveen .S, the treating Doctor, as PW.2, and submitted thirteen documents.
3. On the other hand, the Insurance Company examined a single witness, and submitted two documents. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence, this appeal before this Court.
4. Mr. A.S. Girish, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. Merely because there is a delay of nine days in lodging the FIR, the learned Tribunal has appreciated the evidence in a cynical and skeptical manner. Secondly, the learned Tribunal is unjustified in concluding that there was no registration of a medico-legal case. In fact, the police was duly informed by the hospital, and a medico legal case was made out. Therefore, by misinterpreting the evidence, the learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the appellant’s claim petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for parties, and perused the impugned award.
6. The learned counsel for appellant is unjustified in claiming that merely because of delay of nine days in filing of the FIR, the learned Tribunal has examined the evidence “cynically, and skeptically”. For, a bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that having taken note of the delay in lodging of FIR, the learned Tribunal has put itself on guard before accepting the appellant’s story as the gospel truth. In fact, the learned Tribunal has meticulously examined the evidence available on record.
7. According to the learned Tribunal, the appellant had claimed that his vehicle was hit from the back, and he had sustained injuries due to the impact. However, according to the Inspection Report of the appellant’s vehicle, (Ex.P.4), it did not show any damage to appellant’s vehicle from the back. The only damage it had revealed was that the bumper and the front of the vehicle was damaged. Therefore, the said report belies the claim of the appellant that his vehicle was hit from the back.
8. It is, indeed, trite to state that while men may lie, the contemporaneous documents do not. Therefore, while the appellant may claim that the vehicle was hit from the back, the IMV report (Ex.P.4) belies the entire claim of the appellant.
9. Moreover, according to the learned Tribunal, Dr. Naveen (PW.2) has clearly stated in his testimony that while he was treating the appellant, the appellant had told him that “he had sustained injuries due to self fall”. Since Dr. Naveen is an independent witness, the learned Tribunal was justified in relying on his testimony.
10. Although, the appellant in his testimony claimed that he had remembered the registration number of the offending vehicle, and he had informed the treating Doctor and the hospital, but the police intimation, (Ex.R.2) submitted by the Insurance Company, clearly reveals that the police was merely informed that the appellant had been hit by unknown two wheeler. In case, the appellant had, indeed, informed the hospital about the registration number of the offending vehicle, the same would have been conveyed by the hospital to the police. Therefore, the appellant is not justified in claiming in his testimony that he had informed the hospital about the number of the offending vehicle. Furthermore, the appellant had not produced any document from the hospital which clearly indicated the number of the vehicle.
11. Keeping in mind these glaring lacunae in the appellant’s case, and keeping in mind the inordinate delay of nine days in filing the FIR, the learned Tribunal was justified in concluding that the story narrated by the appellant cannot be accepted even on the basis of probabilities.
Hence, the learned Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant.
12. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality, or perversity in the impugned award. This appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Np/-