IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT M.F.A NO. 5094 OF 2010 (MV) BETWEEN SRI. K.N. RAMALINGAIAH @ RAMALINGEGOWDA, S/O NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT KARADAKERE VILLAGE & POST, C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TQ, MANDYA. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.M. ANANDA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. B. SHANKARA, S/O BOMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT KARADAKERE VILLAGE & POST, C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TQ, MANDYA. .
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISION OFFICE-II, 1ST MAIN, NEW MUSLIM HOSTEL COMPLEX, SARSWATHIPURAM, MYSORE. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAKSHMINARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173 (1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:19.02.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.211/2008 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN) AND MACT, MADDUR, DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT This appeal by the claimant lays a challenge to the judgment and award dated 19.02.2010 made by MACT, Maddur, dismissing the claim petition in M.V.C.No.211/2008 disbelieving the version of the claimant.
2. The brief facts of the case stated are that in a vehicular accident, that happened on 5.1.2008, at around 8.30 PM, involving the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-05/EB847, the claimant having fallen down, sustained grievous injuries and this accident happened because of the rash and negligent driving.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the claimant and the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurer; I have perused the Appeal Papers and also the original LCR.
4. The MACT disbelieved the version of the claimant mainly because there was a huge gap of little less than four months in filing the PCR No.75/2008 and the date of the accident, in the absence of plausible explanation for the delay. The MACT also did not believe the version of PW.2- Dr.A.B. Puttaswamy Gowda who allegedly had treated the injured claimant. Cogent reasons are assigned by the MACT as to why the case of the claimant was held not probablized. There is no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the MACT in the absence of any factual or legal lacuna of significant quantum.
In the above circumstances, appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc