IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM MFA NO.10515/2013(MV) BETWEEN:
SRI. C.S.SIDDESHI, S/O SHIVARUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT HIRIYUT VILLAGE, B.DURGA HOBLI, HOLALKERE TALUK – 577526 CHITRADURGA DIST.
(BY SRI.HARISH. N.R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SIDDAPPA.B.M, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI.P.GIRISH, S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OWNER OF THE MOTORCYCLE BEARING NO.KA-16/S-7840 RESIDING AT SIRIGERE VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK – 577501 ...APPELLANT 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, OPP: BAPUJI AUDITORIM MCC-B BLOCK, DAVANAGERE - 577001 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.MANJULA.N.TEJASVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:23.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.401/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, HOLALKERE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant who was the claimant before the Tribunal has come in this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 23.10.2013 passed in MVC.No.401/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Holalkere, dismissing the claim petition.
2. The case of the appellant before the Tribunal was that on 5.3.2911 at about 8.30 p.m. he was proceeding on motor bike bearing No.KA-16-S-7840 as a pillion rider near poultry farm of Konanur Sannanarappa near Konanur village, Chitradurga Taluk. At that juncture due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the bike without observing the traffic rules, the vehicle in question met with an accident. On account of which the appellant-claimant sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the appellant filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.16,00,000/-. On receipt of notice, the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company contested the proceedings by filing objections and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the claim petition.
The Tribunal having formulated the issues based on the rival contentions and having examined the records, recorded a finding holding that the appellant is not entitled to claim any compensation since he was not proceeding as a pillion rider. On the contrary, he was the one who was riding the bike and as such the question of second respondent-Insurance Company paying compensation would not arise. Having answered issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the negative, the Tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the claim petition.
3. The counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently argue that the finding of the Tribunal in holding that the appellant/claimant was in fact riding the bike and on account of his own negligence the accident had occurred and as such the respondent no.2 insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation suffers from serious infirmity and is contrary to the clinching evidence on record.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and the second respondent- Insurance Company we find that this appeal is devoid of merits. Perusal of Ex.P7 and also the rebuttal evidence adduced by the 2nd respondent–Insurance Company vide Ex.R2 clearly indicates that it is the appellant who was riding the bike. On perusal of Ex.R-1, which is the MLC extract dated 05.03.2011 at 10.00 p.m. at night, there is a clear endorsement stating that the claimant has suffered injuries on account of self riding of the bike. Even perusal of out patient card and history sheet maintained by the Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre also indicate that the claimant suffered injuries due to self riding of bike. One more material fact which could be taken note of is that the accident has taken place on 05.03.2011 and the complaint is lodged after 14 days with the police officials. The medical records also indicate that the brother of the claimant has narrated the way in which the accident has taken place. Thus, the Tribunal has meticulously examined the documents and the manner in which the complaint is lodged after lapse of 14 days. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding of fact that the evidence of brother of the claimant before the Court is contrary to the information given before the Hospital authorities and we do not find any infirmities in the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition.
5. If these factual aspects are taken into consideration, the claim petition filed by the appellant is not all maintainable and the Tribunal having examined the rebuttal evidence adduced by the 2nd respondent insurance company has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant suffered injuries on account of his own negligence while he was riding the motor bike in a rash and negligent manner and he alone was responsible for the accident. In that view of the matter, no grounds are made out in the appeal memo.
In the light of the above said observations, this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-