IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2577 OF 2010 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI.YOGISH S/O LATE PRABHAKARA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT MALDHOTTU HOUSE TAKODE POST, KARINJE VILLAGE MANGALORE TALUK – 575 001 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. NISHITH KUMAR SHETTY, ADV.) AND:
1. SRI.RAMESH SALIAN S/O ANNAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT VISHAL NAGAR PRANTHYA VILLAGE MOODABIDRI – 575 005 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY RASIK CHAMBERS MARKET ROAD MANGALORE – 575 001 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT:GEETHA RAJ, ADV. FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.12.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.265/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-II, MANGALORE, D.K., DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The claim petition filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangalore seeking compensation for the accidental injuries suffered in the road traffic accident that took place on 04th November, 2006 came to be dismissed by its judgment dated 08th December 2009 passed in MVC No.265 of 2007.
2. The ground for rejection of the claim petition is on delay and also on the discrepancy crept-in in the police record. As regards the ground of delay is concerned, the Tribunal has examined the case of the petitioner on the basis of Exhibit P2- complaint was lodged on 09th November 2006 which was lodged after the lapse of five days from the date of accident. As regards discrepancy is concerned, the same is with regard to the name of the father of the injured, i.e. the name mentioned in the complaint and in Exhibit R1-the police information report and the one mentioned in the report made by the hospital differs. The father’s name shown in the cause-title is Prabhakar whereas in the police intimation it is shown as Suner. Secondly, as per the complaint, the injured was pedestrian whereas the police intimation report shows that he was riding a two-wheeler and an unknown tempo came and hit against the petitioner. These are the discrepancies that have been found from the pleadings, and hence, the claim petition was dismissed.
3. The claim petition came to be dismissed in the year 2009 and if the date of accident is taken it is about thirteen years and the date of rejection is almost ten years. At this length of time, I am not inclined to reconsider the case of the appellant. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn