IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM M.F.A.NO.4951 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN:
RANGASWAMY G.
S/O GANGAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT INAPURA VILLAGE K.G.HALLI POST GULUR HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 101. (BY SRI SHANTHARAJ K., ADVOCATE) ....APPELLANT AND:
1. BYLAPPA S/O LATE GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT INAPURA VILLAGE K.G.HALLI POST, GULUR HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 101.
2. FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER HUBLI-580 020.
….RESPONDENTS (SRI Y.P. VENKATAPATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.06.2014 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1208/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & II ADDITIONAL MACT, TUMKUR, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The claimant in MVC.No.1208/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tumakuru, has come up in this appeal impugning the judgment and award dated 02.06.2014.
2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:
The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that while he was standing in front of the house of Kempanna and talking to his friends, he was said to be hit by Bajaj Discover motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-06-ED-6855. According to him, the said accident has taken place at about 6.45 p.m. on 08.09.2011. He would also state that immediately after the accident, one Byregowda, Secretary of Milk Dairy, Kattigegollahalli, took him in an Autorickshaw and admitted him to Adithya Orthopedic and Trauma Centre, Tumakuru on the same day, where he was given treatment and thereafter, he would state that complaint is lodged by him on 11.09.2011 at 10.30 a.m. Based on the said complaint, FIR is registered in Crime No.306/2011 by Kyathasandra Police Station, Tumakuru District, based on which they have also filed charge sheet and claimant on the basis of the copy of the complaint, FIR, charge sheet and other relevant documents filed claim petition contending that he has suffered grievous injuries in the accident which has taken place on 08.09.2011 at about 6.45 p.m. In support of his case, he has examined himself as PW.1 and also examined Doctor by name T.N. Thyagaraj, Orthopedic Surgeon of Adithya Orthopedic and Trauma Centre, Tumakuru as PW.2 to substantiate his claim.
3. The sum and substance of the evidence of the petitioner is similar to the pleading in the claim petition. However, the evidence of the Doctor – T.N. Thyagaraj is in tandem with the medical records which are available on record where the inconsistency begins. Though the claimant would contend that he met with an accident on 08.09.2011, in the complaint filed, FIR registered; the medical records namely, wound certificate – Ex.P-3 issued on 16.09.2011, would indicate that he was taken to Hospital on 09.09.2011 at 8.20 p.m. as against the contents in the complaint which is lodged with the police; where it is stated that immediately after the accident he was taken to Adithya Orthopedic and Trauma Centre, Tumakuru by one Byregowda, Secretary of Milk Dairy, Kattigegollahalli. This is the first inconsistency noticed in the pleadings and evidence. Further, the wound certificate which is at Ex.P-3 does not even refer to the vehicle which is said to have caused the accident and the time of the accident. Admittedly, the said document is issued on 16.09.2011 i.e., much after the complaint was registered, thereby, indicating that what was issued in the wound certificate is what was registered in the Hospital on 09.09.2011 when he was admitted. If that is accepted, then why the complaint would state that he met with an accident on 08.09.2011.
4. When the evidence of the Doctor, PW-2 is looked into, he would also state that for the first time he saw the claimant in the Hospital on 09.09.2011 at 8.20 p.m. If the patient is taken to the hospital immediately after the accident, why there is delay of more than one day in examining the patient by the Doctor in the said Hospital unless his admission to the Hospital is on the same day on which he was given treatment and not on the day which is seen in the complaint. This is a natural inference that could be drawn by this Court. Further, the Doctor would state that this is a road traffic accident case which was admitted in the Hospital and that he informed the police on the very next day and to substantiate the same, he would rely on Ex.P-44, which is the file maintained by the Hospital, where in the investigation column, there is reference to information being sent to police on 09.09.2011. Admittedly, all the Hospitals are required to maintain a register of road traffic accident cases, where the name of the patient, when the information regarding MLC (status of medico legal case) was communicated to the Police Station, should be registered. It is seen that no such document is produced, instead, there is some casual writing in the investigation column where there is a mention regarding the intimation of accident to the police, which cannot be believed.
5. Assuming that if the accident is true, nothing prevented the claimant before the Tribunal to secure presence of police to establish communication of the said information by the Doctor to the police. If that is true, then the next question which would arise is, if the police have received information on 09.09.2011, why they waited till 11.09.2011 when complainant/claimant went to register the complaint. It is in this background, the Tribunal has meticulously looked into all the documents available and has rightly come to the conclusion that the claim petition itself is false and the same cannot be accepted mainly on the ground that the complaint which is filed three days after the accident does not depict the correct picture. The accident has occurred on 08.09.2011 at 6.45 pm. The doctor who has examined claimant on 09.09.2011 at 8.45 pm., has stated in cross-examination that on examination he found the injuries to be fresh. These material facts would create a doubt in regard to claimant having suffered injuries in a road traffic accident.
6. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the appellant tried to substantiate that in catena of decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that wherever FIR, charge sheet, wound certificate and other relevant materials are available, the Tribunal have no business to reject the claim. This Court has come across such judgments of the Apex Court, but they are on different facts and circumstances. In the present case on hand, when there is total inconsistency with reference to the complaint and medical records, to believe the same is improbable.
7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings of the Tribunal in rejecting the claim petition does not merit reconsideration. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the initial stage without even looking into the application – I.A.No.1/2016 which is filed seeking condonation of delay of 652 days in filing the appeal, inasmuch as the entire exercise in issuing notice on said application and thereafter, to give a finding thereon is an exercise in futility, more particularly, when the claim itself is found to be false and baseless.
8. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the appeal by the unsuccessful claimant before the Tribunal is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2016 filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is also dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE CA