IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2676 OF 2010 (MV) BETWEEN:
KRISHNAMURTHY S/O NARAYANA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O BANTUKODU, 74, ULLOOR VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK ...APPELLANT (BY SRI.MAHESHKIRAN SHETTY, ADV.) AND:
1. KAMALAKAR HEBBAR S/O SRINIVASAYYA R/O KALLINAJADDU 74, ULLOOR VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK 2. MANJUNATH GOWDA S/O LATE NARAYANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O MAIN ROAD, SHANKARANARAYANA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE: KUNDAPURA MUNCIPAL ROAD, KUNDAPURA REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ASHOK N PATIL, ADV. FOR R3; R1 & R2 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:29.01.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.1376/2007 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) & ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The claim petition has been made alleging road traffic accident on 16 September 2007 at 8:30 PM while the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on motor cycle bearing number KA 21 H 5501 belonging to the second respondent driven by the first respondent. After having served both the parties and after completion of pleadings the tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 16.09.2007 at about 8.30 am he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motor cycled bearing Regn No.KA 21 H 5501 from Uloor 74 towards Shankaranarayana side, and when reach near Kulunje school, Kulunge village, Kundapara Taluk, the 1st respondent drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied brake of the same and lost control over the same and due to the said impact, the petitioner fell on the road and sustained injuries?
2. Whether the third respondent proves that the insurance policy issued in favour of the RC owner does not cover the risk of pillion rider?
3. Whether the third rt proves that the rider of the motor cycle was not having valid and effective driving licence to ride the same at the time of accident?
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, at what rate and from whom?
2. While answering issue number one it has been alleged that the vehicle involved, as is alleged by the petitioner, is altogether different and it has been implicated for the purpose of false claim. Exhibit P1 is the FIR. The statement of Chandra Poojari who is the brother of the petitioner as per Exhibit P2 is to the affect that the brother was working in a hotel at Bangalore and he came to village in connection with festival. On 16th September 2007 when the petitioner wanted to go to Shankaranarayana by motorcycle bearing registration number KA 21 H 5501 he accompanied him as a pillion rider and on their way the first respondent seeing the lorry coming from the opposite direction suddenly applied brakes which resulted in fall sustaining injuries. This version of the claimant has been examined with reference to Exhibit P1 FIR, which discloses that it is a Bajaj boxer vehicle, whereas the spot mahajar discloses that it was a Kawasaki motorcycle, Black in colour. The version of the complainant Chandra Poojari who owns the motorcycle bearing registration number KA 21 H 550, whereas the motor cycle involved in the accident is motor cycle bearing registration number KA 21 H 5501. These are the material discrepancies found by the Tribunal and it was held that claimant has failed in making the claim and also tried to make a false implication of the vehicle for the purpose of wrongful gain. Though complaint has been taken and FIR had been registered but charge-sheet has been filed, accident report has not been produced and there is no explanation as to why the motorcycle bearing number KA 21 H 5501 has been brought in for the purpose of accident and also the very number was not reflected in the FIR. These material discrepancies resulted in disbelieving the case of the petitioner and after having assigned the reasons they claim petition came to be dismissed. I have gone through the reasons assigned by the Tribunal and the reasons assigned are sound and proper. There is no ground for interference. Appeal accordingly stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn