IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT M.F.A. NO.5692/2011 (MV) BETWEEN:
Sri. Shivananjappa S/o. Nanjappa Aged about 63 years R/o. C.B. Layout, Upparahalli Tumkur Town-572 102. ... Appellant (By Sri. V.B. Siddaramaiah-Advocate) AND:
1. The Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office BAGIC, K.N.V. Complex 4th Cross, Vidyanagar Tumkur-572 101.
Rep. by its Branch Manager.
2. Sri. Shekar R.M. S/o. Mokshapathi Aged about 34 years Rattenahalli Village Tiptur Taluk Tumkur District. ... Respondents (Sri. B. Pradeep, Advocate for R1 R2 Served.) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of MV ACT against the judgment and award dated 29.01.2011 passed in MVC No.10/2008 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge (CJM), Tumkur, dismissing the claim petition for compensation.
This appeal coming on for Hearing this day, the court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T This appeal filed by the injured claimant calls in question the judgment and award in M.V.C.No.10/2008 dated 29.01.2011 made by Senior Additional Civil Judge & CJM, Tumkur, whereby the claim petition has been dismissed.
2. The learned counsel for the claimant Sri.V.B.Siddaramaiah, submits that the trial Court has grossly erred in dismissing the claim petition even though accident is proved and there was a wealth of evidence to substantiate the claim petition especially when the jurisdictional police having registered the crime and having investigated the same had filed charge sheet.
3. The learned panel counsel for the 1st respondent makes submission in justification of the award in question, stating that the trial Court after adverting to the pleadings and after appreciating the evidence on record has arrived at certain findings which can not be reassessed by this Court in its appellate Jurisdiction, lightly.
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and learned panel advocate appearing for 1st respondent and perused the entire records.
5. The trial Court has disbelieved the version of the claimant in view of one important factor namely the gap between the date of accident and the date of filing of FIR which is five days and that there is no explanation for the said delay. Secondly, the trial Court has not believed the medical records the doctor having not been examined and no explanation having been offered for non examination of the doctor.
6. In the above circumstances, this appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, it stands dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE JS/-