IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7630 OF 2007 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUDHA NOW AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS WIFE OF LATE KRISHNA MURTHY RESIDENT OF SECOND KAMBLA CROSS BARKE, MANGALURU.
2. GIRISH SON OF LATE KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS RESIDENT OF SECOND KAMBLA CROSS BARKE, MANGALURU.
PETITIONER NO.2 IS A MINOR AND IS REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. SUDHA- FIRST APPELLANT.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANGAMESH R.B., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C.
CHIKKAMAGALUR DIVISION BARLANE ROAD CHIKKAMAGALUR. ... RESPONDENT (BY MS. SHWETHA ANAND, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.2.2006 PASSED IN MVC NO.1963 OF 2002 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, B.M. SHYAM PRASAD J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed impugning the Judgment and Award dated 15.02.2006 in MVC No.1963 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dakshina Kannada (for short, ‘Tribunal’) whereby, the appellants’ claim petition is rejected on the short ground that the appellants have not been able to establish their relationship with the deceased Krishna Murthy, who died in a road accident on 5.12.2001 when run over by a KSRTC bus near Chickmagalur bus stop.
2. The appellants filed a claim petition in MVC No.1963 of 2002 contending that they are the wife and son of the deceased Krishna Murthy, who was aged 35 years as of the date of the accident. The appellants contended that the deceased Krishna Murthy was working as a labour contractor securing work force to various estates in Chickmagalur and Hassan Districts and he used to travel extensively to different places for his work. They were not aware of the demise of the deceased as they reside in Mangalore and the claim petition is filed after they learnt from the jurisdictional police about the accident and the death. The respondent, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, upon service of claim petition, filed objection statement inter alia denying the assertion that the appellants were the legal representatives of the deceased Krishna Murthy. The Tribunal framed different issues including issue No.1 which required the appellants to establish that they are the legal representatives of the deceased.
3. The appellant No.1 examined herself and another Sri. Abdul as PWs.1 and 2 and marked police records as well as marriage invitation card and ration card as exhibits. On the other hand, the respondent examined its driver and conductor of the offending bus as RWs.1 and 2, and one of its officers as RW.3.
4. The appellant No.1 has deposed that her husband died in the accident that was brought about by the result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus and that she and her son are entitled to receive compensation payable therefor. Insofar as how she learnt about the death of her husband, she has stated in her cross-examination that normally the deceased, who used to come home infrequently once in 2 or 3 months because of his work demands, did not return home even after 2 to 3 months. Therefore, she had to make efforts to ascertain his whereabouts. She came to know that her husband had died in an accident about nine months back in a road accident when the police informed her about the same. She was helped by one Sayed Kaka in ascertaining that her husband had died in a road accident. The last time she saw her husband was when they were residing in a coffee estate near Chickmagalur, but, she is presently residing in Mangaluru. Before moving to Mangaluru, she was residing in Chickmagaluru. She relied upon marriage invitation card and son’s school records to substantiate her case that she and appellant No.2 were the legal representatives of the deceased Krishna Murthy.
5. The Tribunal did not accept the appellants’ ocular or documentary evidence as regards their relationship with the deceased Krishna Murthy. The Tribunal found that the marriage invitation card was dubious and an effort was made to represent a newly printed card as an old marriage invitation card. The Tribunal also did not rely upon the ration card as it was only a photo copy. Further, the Tribunal held against the appellants because the appellants had not examined any relative of the deceased Krishna Murthy to establish their relationship.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants, while relying upon these very exhibits and ocular evidence of appellant No.1 to contend that the appellants had placed necessary materials on record which established that the appellants were indeed related to the deceased, also relied upon the School Admission Extract filed along with IA No.1 of 2017 under Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel contended that the entries in this School Admission Extract established that the appellant No.2 was shown as the son of the deceased Krishna Murthy and this evidence would also be significant for the purposes of deciding whether the appellants had established their relationship with the deceased Krishna Murthy.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent supporting the impugned judgment and award, contended that the evidence of appellant No.1 was very tenuous and suffered from material contradictions which establish that the appellants had made a false claim asserting relationship with the deceased because no claims otherwise had been made for compensation.
8. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal in view of the rival submissions is, whether the material on record would be sufficient to hold that the appellants have established that they are the legal representatives of the deceased Krishna Murthy, who died in a road accident on 5.12.2001.
9. The appellant No.1 has stated in her evidence that she and her husband were residing in Hospete before shifting to Chickmagalur. They resided together in a coffee estate in Chickmagalur for about 4 to 5 years. She then shifted to Mangaluru city and started working in the house of one certain Sayed Kaka. She is residing in Mangaluru for the last two years. However, she says she last saw her husband while they were staying in a coffee plantation at Chikkamagalur, which essentially means much before the date of the accident. She further states that she tried to know the whereabouts of her husband when he did not return home for about 2 to 3 months. This further confounds the appellants’ case. In her statement before the police recorded on 11.9.2002, she has stated that she recognized the deceased from the photo copy. The marriage invitation card, as rightly concluded by the Tribunal, looks suspicious. Even otherwise, School Admission Extracts relied upon by the appellants does not inspire confidence inasmuch as it is obtained in the year 2012 that is during the pendency of this appeal. Thus, in the totality and facts and circumstances of the case, as borne out from the material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has right in concluding that the appellants have not been able to establish that they are the legal representatives of the deceased Krishna Murthy. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE SA