IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.3911/2013 [MV] BETWEEN:
MR. MAHESH S/O HOOVAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/O JODUKATTE, HOSSANAGAR TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
(BY SRI.H C PRAKASH, ADV.) AND:
1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE – 04 NO.16, 2ND FLOOR KUMARAKRUPA ROAD SHIVANANDA CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 001.
... APPELLANT 2. MR. N.C. VENKATESH S/O SRI CHIKKA HANUMEGOWDA N.S., NO.84, I MAIN, I CROSS B RAMAIAH ROAD B.K. NAGAR YESHWANTHPURA BANGALORE- 560 054.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATESH R BHAGAT, ADV. FOR R1 R2 – SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS M.F.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.3981/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The claimant, aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition under the judgment and award dated 24.01.2013 passed in MVC No.3981/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) is before this Court in this appeal.
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant. It is stated that on 15.03.2011, when the claimant was walking on the left side of the road, it is alleged that a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-04/EJ-9555 came in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the claimant, causing grievous injuries. It is stated that the claimant was working as Assistant Cook in Hotel Prashanth Darshan and earning Rs.5,000/- p.m.
3. On service of notice, respondent No.1/Insurer appeared before the Tribunal and filed written statement denying the allegations and claims made by the claimant. Further it is contended that accident had not taken place and the claimant has sustained injuries due to some other reason. The claimant in order to claim compensation has managed to file a false complaint.
4. The claimant got himself examined as P.W.1 and marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P34. On behalf of respondents, one witness was examined as R.W.1 and got marked the Police intimation book as Ex.R1.
5. The Tribunal, on appreciating the material placed before it dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimant has failed to prove the accident that occurred on 15.03.2011 involving the motorbike bearing registration No.KA-KA-04/EJ-9555. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant is before this Court in this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent/insurer. Perused the material placed on record including the lower court records.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accident had taken place on 15.03.2011 and the complaint was filed after 8 days as there was no other person to file the complaint and as the claimant was taking treatment, he was unable to lodge the complaint immediately after the accident. Further, the claimant inviting the attention of this Court to Ex.P10 submits that the discharge summary clearly discloses that the claimant went to NIMHANS hospital with the history of road traffic accident. He submits that the Tribunal only on the ground that there is 8 days delay in lodging the complaint has dismissed the claim petition, without looking into the entire material on record.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/insurer submits that the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition. It is further contended that the medical records would not indicate that the claimant had taken treatment to the injuries suffered in a road traffic accident, as such, the claim petition was rightly rejected by the Tribunal.
9. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire material on record, the only point which falls for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
10. Answer to the above point is in the affirmative for the following reasons:
The alleged accident is said to have taken place on 15.03.2011 involving the motorbike bearing registration No.KA-04/EJ-9555. The claimant said to have suffered grievous fracture injuries. He was admitted to Kala hospital, Yeshwanthpur, K.C.General Hospital, Malleswaram and thereafter in NIMHANS. The claimant has produced Ex.P7-wound certificate, Exs.P.8, 9, and 10-discharge summaries. The complaint is lodged on 23.03.2011, 8 days after the accident. The complaint is by one Satish, but the complainant is not examined. However, the complaint is marked as Ex.P2. The Ex.P7- wound certificate would not indicate that the claimant has suffered injuries due to road traffic accident. The claimant invites the attention of the Court to Ex.P8-discharge summary of KC General Hospital and Ex.P10-discharge summary of NIMHANS. Ex.P10 is handwritten and would not contain the signature or seal of the NIMHANS, nor any person authorized is examined in support of Ex.P10. Hence, the same cannot be believed nor looked into. The reason for delay in lodging the complaint that there was no one to lodge the complaint and the complainant was engaged in providing treatment to the claimant cannot be believed, when he has not come before the Tribunal. The complainant would have been the best person to depose with regard to delay, but he has not been examined. The claimant has not examined any of the doctors from the hospitals, to substantiate his contention that he has taken treatment for the accidental injuries.
11. In the absence of cogent evidence or material to indicate that the claimant has suffered accidental injuries, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is neither perverse nor erroneous, so as to interfere with. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-*CT:bms