IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9711/2010 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI. MANJU @ MANJEGOWDA S/O PAPEGOWDA AGED 26 YEARS R/O MUDAGANURU VILLAGE HEGGADAHALLI POST MALLIPATTANA HOBLI ARKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT ... APPELLANT (BY SHRI. A.M. BALAJI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SAROJAMMA W/O LATE ANNEGOWDA AGED 34 YEARS R/O MUDAGANURU VILLAGE HEGGADAHALLI POST MALLIPATTANA HOBLI ARKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT (OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE BEARING REG.NO.KA-13-S-2720) 2. THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., G.E. PLAZA, AIR PORT ROAD, ERAVADA, POONA-411 006 REP. BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE BAJAJ ALLIANZE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., 2ND FLOOR, LAKSHMI COMPLEX OPP. OF BSNL BUILDING B.M. ROAD HASSAN-573 201 (INSURER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE BEARING REG.NO.KA-13-S-2720, POLICY VALID FROM 31.05.2007 TO 30.05.2008) ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:16.07.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.427/2008 ON THE FILE OF MACT, ARAKALGUD DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT Heard Shri A.M. Balaji, learned advocate for the appellant and Shri P.B. Raju, learned advocate for respondent No.2.
2. Unsuccessful claimant before Tribunal has filed this appeal challenging judgment and award dated 16.07.2010 passed in MVC No.427/2008.
3. Learned advocate for the claimant submits that Tribunal has disbelieved claimant’s case with regard to involvement of the vehicle in question on the premise that there is variance in Ex.R2 – MLC register and Ex.R3 – discharge summary. He submits that claimant was initially admitted in Hemavathi Hospital, Hassan and subsequently shifted to S.C. Hospital, Hassan. Claimant could not produce any documents from the hospital where he was initially treated, but he has produced the discharge summary. Accordingly, he prays for allowing this appeal.
4. Shri P.B. Raju, learned advocate for respondent No.2 argued in support of the impugned judgment and award.
5. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records.
6. In the conspectus of facts, the point that arises for consideration is, whether claimant has proved that he sustained injuries in the accident involving motor cycle bearing No. KA-13-S-2720.
7. It is claimant’s case before the Tribunal that the aforesaid motor cycle dashed against him causing injuries. In the FIR lodged before the police on 08.10.2007, it is stated that the accident had taken place on 19.09.2007. Ex.R2, the MLC Register maintained by the S.C. Hospital shows that victim had suffered injuries due to fall from a trailer attached to a tractor at 6:30 p.m., on 19.09.2007. The said record was made at 10:45 p.m. Ex. R3 is a discharge summary and it does not contain any details with regard to the history of accident.
8. Except Ex.R2 – MLC Register, there is no other material to deduce the history of the injury. The said exhibit is a record maintained by the District Government Hospital and the contents thereof were recorded at an undisputed point of time. Admittedly, FIR is lodged after about 20 days.
9. Thus, in substance, the claimant has not placed any evidence before the Tribunal to establish that the injuries suffered by him are on account of an accident involving the vehicle in question. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the judgment passed by the Tribunal rejecting the claim. Resultantly, this appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV