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 MFA NO.2916 OF 2010 (MV) BETWEEN:
MALLIKARJUNA S/O SUNDRESHA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS NOW R/O KELOGOTE CHITRADURGA TOWN.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI B.L. KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. H.M. JAYADEVA S/O H.L. MANJUNATHA AGED 42 YEARS OWNER OF HERO HONDA SPLENDOR REG. NO.KA-16 K-7071 R/O HOOVINA HOLE HIRIYUR TALUK.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, M.H. COMPLEX LAXMI BAZAR CHITRADURGA.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GEETHA RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 D/W V/C/O DTD:13.01.2015) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.08.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.28/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HIRIYUR, DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The claim petition filed by the claimant came to be dismissed on 12.08.2009 by the MACT, Hiriyur in MVC No.28/2007.
2. The Tribunal, at paragraph 10 of the order, has referred to the statement made by the complainant in Ex.P-1 - FIR, wherein he has stated that on 16.01.2005, while he was proceeding towards M.D.Kote in his Bajaj M-80 bike bearing registration No.KA-16 1565 at 6.40 p.m., at the down gradient his bike turtled and he fell and suffered injury to his head. The claimant, in order to make profit out of it, he created a different story as if his vehicle was dashed by another vehicle i.e., Honda Motor Cycle bearing registration No.KA-16 K-7071 causing the accident and resulting in injury. This has been examined by the Tribunal in detail at paragraphs 10, 12 and 15 and an attempt has been made to falsely implicate the offending vehicle.
3. The owner of the vehicle which caused the accident, according to the claimant, is also of the same village. The claimant made a statement to the police that the offending vehicle bearing registration No.KA-16 K- 7071 dashed and caused the accident and the claimant has not chosen to examine the person who is of the same village. When it is confronted to the claimant about Ex.P-1, he has admitted the signature and also the complaint to the effect that it was a self accident. Taking note of all these facts into consideration, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition.
In the circumstances, no ground is made out for interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ca