1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9794 OF 2010 (MV) BETWEEN:
K.S. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O S.N. SANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.40/6, 9TH MAIN ROAD ’H’ BLOCK, KANAKADASANAGAR MYSORE …APPELLANT (BY SHRI. M.B. RYAKHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. P.T. SUMITRA W/O PUTTARAVI MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.83, 4TH MAIN 2ND PHASE, MANJUNATHANAGAR BANGALORE 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., OPP. SUBURB BUS STAND, KSRTC BANGALORE-NILIGIRI ROAD MYSORE REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER 3. YOGESH S/O JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT HEGGADAHALLI 2 ARAKALAGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. B.A. RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DTD 11.02.15;
R3-SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.10.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.1022/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MACT, MYSORE, DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT The claimant before the Tribunal has challenged the judgment and award dated October 11, 2010 in MVC No.1022/2009 on the file of I Additional District Judge and MACT, Mysore, dismissing the claim petition.
2. Shri M.B.Ryakha, learned advocate for the claimant argued that the Tribunal has disbelieved the 3 documents produced by the claimant and dismissed the claim petition. He submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph No.10 are perverse and prays that this appeal be allowed.
3. Shri B.A.Ramakrishna, learned advocate for the Insurer argued in support of the Tribunal’s judgment.
4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
5. The short question that arises for consideration is, whether the claimant has placed sufficient material for the Tribunal to hold that he suffered injuries on account of an accident?
6. Claimant has come to the Court with a definite case that he suffered injuries when a Tata Sumo vehicle dashed against him on 11.08.2006. In support of his contention, he has produced Ex.P7, a 4 wound certificate issued by one Dr.B.L.Prakash, dated 31.08.2006 wherein the doctor has recorded the history of injury as a road traffic accident which occurred on August 11, 2006 at 2.45 P.M. He has also recorded that first aid was given in the HAL hospital.
7. The second circumstance which is taken note of by the Tribunal is that the FIR was registered in Airport Police Station on 24.08.2006. Learned Judge, having analysed these two documents has come to the conclusion that P.W.2 is none other than claimant’s brother in law who is said to be eyewitness and the complainant. Admittedly, there is a delay of 13 days in lodging the complaint. Both these circumstances go against the appellant. Further the accident alleged to have taken place on August 11, 2006 is not corroborated by any evidence.
5 8. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Resultantly, this appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Yn.