IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR M.F.A.NO.7211 OF 2016 (MV) Between:
Sri.Krishna Gowda, Son of Dodda Narayanappa, Aged about 32 years, R/at Ramanatha Puram, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru-Rural District. ... Appellant (By Sri.Mujtaba.H, Advocate) And:
1. JMC Constructions Private Limited, A.Srinivasulu, 27-972/1, Telecom Colony, Chittoor-517 002.
2. The National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office at Subharam Complex, M.G.Road, Bengaluru-560 001. ... Respondents (By Sri.K.Sridhar, Advocate for R2; R1-served and unrepresented) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated: 31.5.2016 passed in MVC No.156/2014 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, JMFC, Chickballapur, dismissing the claim petition for compensation.
This MFA coming on for Admission this day, the Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT This appeal is presented by the unsuccessful claimant before the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal challenging judgment and award dated 31.5.2016 in MVC No.156/2014 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Chickballapur.
2. Claimant approached the Tribunal contending that he had suffered injuries in a road traffic accident. On perusal of the documents placed during the trial, Tribunal has recorded various inconsistencies. Firstly that FIR was registered on 24.4.2014 at 1.30 p.m. stating that complainant was riding the motor cycle which met with an accident in Chickaballapura town. Secondly that Ex.P7, wound certificate issued by Fortis Hospital, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore on 20.5.2014 revealed that claimant had sustained crush injury on right foot and the cause of injury is shown as accident occurred in Devanahalli town at 12.30 p.m. involving a two wheeler and a lorry. Thirdly, in the case sheet attached to Ex.P7, it is recorded that the petitioner was examined in District Hospital, Chickballapura at 11.45 a.m.
3. The Tribunal has recorded other inconsistencies in the documents also. In substance, the claimant could not have been at two different places i.e., Devanahalli and Chickballapura on the same day and approximately at the same time. Accordingly, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant-claimant submitted that the facts recorded in the medical certificates have been examined like a criminal case and therefore, the dismissal is bad in law.
5. Learned advocate for respondent No.2-Insurer has argued in support of the award passed by the Tribunal.
6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records.
7. On the face of it, it is illogical to construe that an injured person can be at two distant places namely, Chickballapur and Devanahalli between 11.45 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. on the date of accident. The said findings are based on the first information report and the medical certificates issued by the Fortis Hospital. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the findings recorded by the Tribunal and dismissing the claim petition.
Resultantly, this appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp