IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M.F.A. NO.1028 OF 2010 (MV) BETWEEN:
S.RANEMMA D/O.SRIRAMA ALIAS RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER FATHER-CUM-NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI.SRIRAM, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/A AMBICAL VILLAGE, DUGGASANDRA HOBLI MULBAGAL TALUK, KOALR DIST. ... APPELLANT (BY SMT.SUGUNA R REDDY, ADV.) AND:
1. S.K.AKBAR S/O AHAMED ALI, MAJOR IN AGE R/A VALANDAPALEM, GANGULA THOTA VEEDHI MACHALI PATNAM CITY, KRISHNA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.2, PATAMATA, VIJAVAVADA CITY KRISHNA DIST., ANDHRA PRADESH 3. N.DEVARAJ S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE R/A AMBEDKAR NAGAR MULBAGAL TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, IST FLOOR BAGLUR MANSION, DODDAPET KOLAR ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.O.MAHESH, ADV. FOR R2 & R4; SRI.G.A.SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADV. FOR R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:07.01.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.125/2001 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) & MACT, KOLAR, SITTING AT MULBAGAL, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Father of the injured preferred a claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by his minor daughter in a road traffic accident on 17th March 2000. The claim petition came to be dismissed on the ground of discrepancies and on the ground that the documents produced disprove for having suffered accident. The Tribunal framed issues of which issue number one is to the effect that the petitioner proves that she has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident that occurred on 17.02.2011 at about 8.15 am near Mallanayakanahalli cross of Mulibagil by-pass road NH-04 due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing registration No.AEQ 8545 and Bus bearing Registration No.KA 07 4747 by its driver. The said issue has been answered in the negative and consequently the claim petition came to be dismissed.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The case of the claimant is that his daughter who was studying in second standard, when she was going to school to write examination, at that time because of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry which has caused the accident, the claimant has suffered injuries. The Tribunal has not accepted the case of the claimant on the ground of infirmities. Firstly, on the ground that the date of accident referred to in the claim petition at paragraph 8 and 22, wherein at paragraph 8 it is contended that the accident took place on 17 February 2001 at 8:15 AM; and in paragraph 22 it is stated that accident took place on 17 March 2000. This may be a typographical error and, probably, either the council or the father might have done it in a mechanical way. The another aspect is that after having suffered the accident though one of the inmates has filed a complaint it does not include the name of the insured. Immediately after the accident, the injured was taken to Government Hospital and the wound certificate exhibit P1 that has been produced reveals that accident was on 27th March 2001. Similarly in exhibits B2 and B3 also the said date has been deferred. This is the difference wherein the date of accident varies to the one mentioned in the claim petition and in the records produced to that affect. In the first information report it is mentioned the date of accident as 27th March 2001. When these are the discrepancies crept in the statement and in the documents produced to that effect, naturally, it must have created a confusion in the mind of the learned Judge. Though the case could not have been dismissed on the ground of suppression of facts, but it does not survive for consideration on the ground of discrepancies and infirmities found in it. The learned counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in the case of NABISAB AND OTHERS v. SHIVAPPA AND OTHERS in MFA No.31621 of 2011 disposed of on 11th December 2015 wherein it is held that the variation of dates mentioned cannot be a ground for rejection of the appeal, it is for the parties to a satisfy the same by producing necessary documents to that effect. In the instant case, the father of the injured has himself has given different dates in the claim petition and the dates mentioned in the documents to produced to that effect in support of the claim petition. Under these circumstances, I hold that the petition fails not for suppressing the facts but for the infirmities and discrepancies in the claim petition. I hold that the reasons assigned by the Tribunal is proper. Accordingly there is no ground for interference in this appeal and the appeal stands rejected.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn