Doddalingaiah vs Ramachandra, N.C.

B. Manohar, J.—Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 31-1-2011 made in MVC No. 631/2010 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tumkar (hereinafter referred to as �the Tribunal� for short) dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimant.

The appellant herein filed a claim petition contending that on 6-10-2010 at about 3.30 p.m., while he was proceeding on the left side of Tumkur-Tovinakere road by walk, a motor bike bearing Registration No. KA-52-11-2359 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the claimant, due to which, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to the District Hospital, Tumkur. He was inpatient for a period of 22 days and he has sustained injuries to all over the body and fracture of both the bones of left leg. He has spent huge money for his treatment. Prior to the accident, he was working as an agriculturist and doing business earning Rs. 6,000/- p.m. In view of the injuries and fracture he has sustained, he is disabled to do any work. Hence sought for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

Though the first respondent was served with notice, he remained unrepesented. The second respondent/insurance company before the Tribunal filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also disputed the occurrence of the accident. It was specifically contended that a false case has been set up in order to claim the compensation and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

On the basis of the pleadings of the par-ties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. The claimant in order to prove his case got examined himself as P.W. 1 and got marked the documents as Ex. P1 to Ex. P7. On behalf of the insurance company, one of the officers of the company was examined as R.W. 1 and got marked the documents as Ex. R1 and Ex. R.2.

The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties held that the claimant has failed to prove the occurrence of the accident on 6-10-2010 due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorbike. Though the alleged accident occurred on 6-10-2010, the complaint has been lodged before the jurisdictional police by the wife of the injured only on 21-10-2010. While the injured was admitted in the hospital, history of injury was mentioned as self fall. In view of that, the hospital authorities have not submitted the MLC register to the jurisdictional police, since no motorbike was involved in the incident. Only on 21-10-2010, in collusion with the first respondent, the alleged motorbike was set up and the case pleaded by the claimant cannot be believed and hence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed this appeal.

I have heard the arguments addressed by Sri Patel D. Karegowda, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri K. Nagaraj and Sri Shivraj Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, respectively.

The case set up by the appellant is that on 6-10-2010, while he was walking on the left side of the road, the offending motorbike dashed against the claimant. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted to the hospital by one Ashwath, at about 1.30 p.m. While the injured was admitted in the hospital, it was clearly stated that the injury caused due to self fall. The police complaint was lodged on 21-10-2010 alleging that due to the rash and negligent driving of motorbike, the accident had occurred. On the basis of the said complaint, the Police have built up the documents. Based on the said police records, the claim petition has been filed. The claimant during the course of trial, admitted that on 6-10-2010, while he was walking on the road along with his wife, the accident occurred. One Ashwath had taken the injured to the hospital. However, nothing prevented the wife of the injured to lodge a complaint before the police immediately, regarding the occurrence of the accident. Only after 15 days after the alleged accident, the complaint came to be filed by the wife of the injured i.e., on 21-10-2010. There is inordinate delay of 15 days in lodging the complaint. Apart from the while admitting the injured in the hospital, it was clearly mentioned that the history of injury is due to self fall. Nowhere it was mentioned that the injury was due to road traffic accident however only on 9-10-2010 on the strength on an affidavit, it was changed that injury was due to the alleged road traffic accident. The Tribunal disbelieved the case set up by the appellant and dismissed the claim petition. In order to get compensation from the insurance company, a false case has been set up on the basis of the police records. In the instant case, delay in lodging the complaint and also statement made before the doctor is fatal. I find no infirmity or irregularity in the said finding. No case has been made out to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.