IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY DECEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM M.F.A.No.2493/2014 (MV-D) BETWEEN:
1. M.S.PRABHAVATHI W/O LATE N.V.SATHISHA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 2. VARUNGOWDA S/O LATE N.V.SATHISHA, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, 3. DHANALAKSHMI D/O LATE N.V.SATHISHA, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND GUARDIAN MOTHER M.S.PRABHAVATHI, 4. VENKATESH S/O LATE NEELAGIRI JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 5. SMT.PUTTAMMA W/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VEERABHADRASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD, NAGAMANGALA TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT 571 431. NOW RESIDING AT C/O M.S.PRABAVANI, D/O SIDDALINGAIAH, S/O SIDDEGOWDA, MAYAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK 571 431. … APPELLANTS (BY SMT.SHARADAMBA A.R, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. RAMESHA S/O CHANNAHEGDE, MAJOR, RESIDING AT DYAPASANDRA VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK 571 401.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM, M/S GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., NO.363, SRIHARI COMPLEX, RAMAVILASA ROAD, MYSORE 570 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC.NO.378/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) MACT, MANDYA, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPESNATION AND SEEKING ENHANCDMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The claimants in MVC.No.378/2010 on the file of MACT, Mandya, have come up in this appeal impugning the judgment and award dated 25.10.2013 in dismissing the claim petition filed by them.
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: The claim petition in MVC.No.378/2010 is filed by the widow, children and parents of deceased N.V.Sathisha. According to them, on 25.8.2009 the said Sathisha was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-54/E.1167 on Mandya - Nagamangala Road. While he was so proceeding, it is stated that he was hit by a goods Auto bearing registration No.KA-11/A-0406 at about 4.15 pm. According to them, the accident has taken place when the vehicle on which victim Sathisha was traveling was hit by the said good Auto which was proceeding in the same path right behind the vehicle on which Sathisha was proceeding.
3. It is contended by the claimants that immediately after the accident victim Sathisha was shifted to Mandya District Hospital but, inspite of best efforts of Doctors he could not be saved and he succumbed to the injuries at about 5.20 pm., on the same day. Thereafter, the claimants, namely widow, two minor children and aged parents of Sathisha filed claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation in a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of goods auto, which according to them caused the accidental death of Sathisha.
4. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the 1st claimant, widow of victim adduced evidence as PW.1. In support of her case, she also produced and marked in all 7 documents, which are certified copies of charge sheet, inquest report, IMV report, further statement of the complainant, RC, 4 RTC extracts and the death ceremony card of the deceased. In addition to this, the claimants examined one more witness by name Srinivas as PW.2, who is alleged to be eye-witness having seen the accident as taken place on 25.8.2009 at about 4.15 pm. According to him, he was coming from the opposite side in which the motor cycle on which the victim was traveling. He would also state that the goods auto was coming behind the motor cycle on which victim was traveling and the accident has taken place in his presence. In the cross-examination, he would state that in that behalf a complaint was given and in the complaint the name and number of auto was included. He would state that he had given a statement in that behalf to the police.
5. The said oral evidence of PW.2 - Srinivasa was not supported by any documentary evidence which was made available by the claimants in support of their claim. However, in the said proceedings the respondent – insurer, who had taken defence that the accident has not taken place as contended by the claimants and that, the goods vehicle was fixed in the said accident, has adduced evidence through RW.1 Suresh, Legal Assistant Manager of respondent – insurance company. Through him, they would produce and mark 3 relevant documents which are Exs.R1 to R3, namely FIR copy, seizure panchanama and policy copy.
6. The Tribunal after recording the evidence in the aforesaid manner analyzed the same and found that the claim made by the claimants is without basis and based on the concocted and false documents and also by suppressing the documents which would disclose the manner in which accident has taken. In fact, while suppressing the documents there is an attempt to fill the gap by oral evidence in trying to mislead the Tribunal to secure compensation.
7. When the entire judgment and evidence available on record as well as the pleadings on record is seen, it would clearly indicate that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper for more than one reason. Admittedly, the claim petition would indicate that the accident has taken place on 25.8.2009 at about 4.15 pm., when the husband of 1st claimant was riding his motor cycle, thereby clearly indicating that at the relevant point of time there was nobody who was traveling along with the victim and he was proceeding on the said vehicle by himself. The accident which has taken place at 4.15 pm., on that day was informed to the police on the same day, as could be seen from Ex.R1 produced by the insurer, which clearly discloses that initially complaint was lodged with the police by one Kumara s/o Tabbali Linga Heggade of Dyapasandra village, Kiragodu Hobli, Mandya Taluk. He would state that the accident is caused by the rider of the motor cycle.
8. The person who has seen the accident has informed the police about the manner in which the accident has occurred. On his complaint, FIR in No.497/2009 was registered immediately after the accident. Therefore, there was hardly any scope to make any improvements in the complaint which was made by him. Incidentally, the complaint which is filed by him is not at all made available before the Tribunal. Further, no attempt is made to examine him as witness. On the contrary, there is an attempt on the part of victim’s wife in producing further statement of Complainant-Kumar to demonstrate that the accident leading to death of her husband has taken place involving another vehicle. The said act of the claimants has turned out to be futile, for the simple reason that, the copy of FIR/complaint would indicate the accident having taken place due to the mistake on the part of the rider and the complainant – Kumar in the said complaint would state that the same is self fall. Thereafter, the manipulation is seen in the documents which are produced by the claimants. The police who are known for manipulation, particularly in MVC cases, are benevolent in this case also in creating a document as if a further statement is given by the complainant in indicating that the accident causing the death of Sathisha – husband of 1st claimant has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of goods auto. It is seen that the said document is relied upon by the claimants in the Tribunal and they choose to keep the FIR away from the Tribunal, thereby deliberately indicating that they did not want the Tribunal to come to know of that. Though the claimants did not choose to file the said document before the Tribunal, they could not prevent the 1st respondent in bringing the same to the notice of the Tribunal.
9. However, the claimants had enough time and wisdom to see that the alleged further statement of complainant dated 27.9.2009 would come on record in the form of Ex.P4, which according to them is the source with which the police have come to know about the vehicle which is involved in causing the accident. Actually, this is the base on which charge sheet is filed against the vehicle which was not involved in the accident. But rightly the owner of goods auto opposed inclusion of his vehicle as the one which caused the accident and contested the same. When that is looked into, it is further seen that the police even manipulated the date of seizure panchanama, which is on 8.10.2009.
10. Assuming for a moment, if the police had come to know about the vehicle which caused the accident either immediately after the accident or on the date of recording further statement on 27.9.2009, nothing prevented them from seizing the vehicle immediately thereafter, but, it is seized on 8.10.2009 indicating the date of recording of alleged further statement is only a manipulation. In fact, when the entire lower court record is seen, the complaint which was filed by Kumara on 25.8.2009 is also available in the record. However, the same is not deliberately marked before the Tribunal so as to ensure that the Tribunal should not look into that document. However, when further statement and seizure panchanama is seen, it is in suppression of the original complaint dated 25.8.2009 and the said two documents, namely further statement and seizure panchanama, which are concocted are only to create basis for filing the claim petition and to seek compensation.
11. The Tribunal after having seen through the game plan of the claimants felt that no grounds are made out to believe that the death of Sathisha has taken place due to the accident which was caused by rash and negligent driving of goods auto and accordingly, dismissed the claim petition which is sought to be challenged in this appeal.
12. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants as well as respondents and on going through the material available on record, this Court find that no grounds are made out to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition of the claimants, who are appellants herein.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE nd/-