Jagadish Rao vs Muniswamy and Others

Rathnakala, J—The appellant aggrieved by the dismissal of his petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the Principal M.A.C.T. & Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (''the Tribunal'' for short), in M.V.C. No. 3680/2010 dated 31st March 2012, is in appeal before this court.

The appellant/claimant filed a petition before the Tribunal contending that, on 13.4.2010 at 1.15 a.m. while he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-41/K-3063, the rider of the said vehicle drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, lost control and hit the median. Consequently, he fell down and sustained grievous injury; he was 27 years as on the date of accident; prior to the accident, he was physically and mentally fit and working as a Boiler Operator at ISS Catering Services (South) Pvt. Ltd. and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and was supporting the family. The jurisdictional Police have charge sheeted the rider of the motor cycle and he is punished. Due to the accident, he suffered following injuries:

i) traumatic brain injury;

ii) right temporal EDH;

iii) left frontal and interhemispheric SDH;

iv) multiple haemorrhagic contusions;

v) diffused cerebral edema;

vi) fracture right temporal, fracture basiocciput;

vii) fracture left olecranon with heterotopic ossification .

The said petition was contested. The owner of the motor cycle remained absent and was placed ex parte. The stand of the insurer was, the claimant himself was riding the motor cycle at the time of the accident in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, lost control over the vehicle, dashed against the circle and fell down himself on the road and suffered injuries. The complaint is filed as an after thought colluding with the Hospital and Police authorities two days after the accident by misrepresenting that the claimant/appellant was the pillion rider. The rider of the motor cycle, who is named in the complaint, is the friend of the claimant and he has not suffered any injuries during the alleged accident. The Tribunal on overall consideration of the matter has dismissed the petition as not maintainable.

Smt. Nalini Mohan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the finding of the Tribunal is on erroneous consideration of the material evidence on record. The respondent had produced Ex.R1/the copy of the records from NIMHANS where the appellant was firstly treated. Going by this document, there is a mention that the appellant/claimant fell from the scooter, however, it is also mentioned that the informant has given the history on hearsay but the Tribunal strongly relied upon this hearsay statement to non-suit the claimant. The appellant having suffered head injury cannot maintain himself on his own; he is represented by his wife. There is some delay in lodging the complaint before the Police, but that alone cannot be a ground for the Tribunal to reject his case in the light of the established position of law. During the cross-examination of RW-1, admission was extracted by the appellant but same is overlooked by the Tribunal. Hence, the order of the Tribunal suffers from grave infirmities and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and matter may be remanded to the Tribunal for quantification and award of the compensation amount.

Sri. Ashok N. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/insurer while substantiating the order of the Tribunal, has taken us through Ex.P1, the FIR, which was lodged at 3 p.m., on 14.4.2010 though the accident had occurred on 13.4.2010 at 1.15 a.m. The explanation offered in the FIR for the delay was that since the informant admitted the injured to the Hospital, there was delay in lodging the complaint. The name of the complainant is one Shivaji Rao but he is not the relative, who has accompanied the injured to NIMHANS and has given the history to the Hospital. The appellant has suppressed the material evidence of getting the injured treated at NIMHANS only to overcome the history of the incident given to the hospital authorities at the earliest point of time. He further adds that no information about the medico-legal case is sent either by NIMHANS or St. John''s Medical Hospital. It is an after thought of the family of the injured one day after the incident to lodge a complaint by arraying a friend of the injured claimant as the accused. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the materials placed before it to disbelieve the case of the claimant. It is also observed that the informant to the Police one Shivaji Rao, son of Siddoji Rao is none other than the brother of Muniswamy, S/o Siddoji Rao/first respondent/owner of the vehicle and all of them in collusion with the Police have filed a false case and the appellant himself is responsible for the accident and the consequent injuries suffered.

Undisputedly, the claimant/appellant suffered grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.4.2010 while proceeding on the motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-41/K-3063. If really the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the rider, in all probability said rider also would have suffered some or other injuries when the motor cycle fell down but no such evidence is forthcoming from the record. There is delay in lodging the complaint and the explanation offered for the delay is not convincing. That apart, the Hospitals have not sent information of medico-legal case to the jurisdictional Police on receiving the patient at their Hospitals. The Tribunal on facts has found that the informant is none other than the brother of the rider of the motor cycle. This finding of fact is not assailed by the appellant. From the perusal of the order of the Tribunal, we find it judicious and well reasoned order. If the accused of the criminal case/rider of the motor cycle happily pleads guilty to the charges before the Trial court for extraneous reason, the claimant cannot dwell upon such plea of guilt of the accused when there is overwhelming evidence on record that the accident is due to self- fall of the appellant/claimant from the motor bike.

In that view of the matter, we find no merit to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.