Katharaju vs H S. Umesh

Mr. B. Manohar, J.—Appellant being the claimant has filed this appeal, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 10-11-2011 made in MVC No. 1354/2010 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sira (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'' for short) dismissing the claim petition filed by him.

The appellant filed a claim petition contending that on 18-10-2009, at about 8.00 p.m., while he was proceeding towards Kotti village on the left side of the road, at that time, the rider of the Hero Honda motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-06/EB-2574 came in a rash and negligent manner from Hulikunte side and dashed against the appellant from backside. Due to the impact, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident he was shifted to Government Hospital Sira, thereafter he was shifted to District Hospital, Tumkur wherein he had taken treatment as inpatient for a period of 6 days. He has spent more than Rs. 35,000/- towards medical expenditure. He was an agriculturist and also doing milk vending business and earning Rs. 8,000/- p.m. In view of the accidental injuries he has sustained and the permanent disability he has suffered, he cannot work so effectively as he was working prior to the accident. Hence sought for compensation.

In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, though the owner of the vehicle served with notice, he remained unrepresented. The second respondent insurance company filed written statement denying the manner of accident. Though the alleged accident occurred on 18-10-2009 and the claimant was discharged from the hospital on 23-10-2009, the complaint was lodged only on 30-10-2009 by the uncle of the claimant Doddarangappa. There is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. Further, on the basis of the said complaint, first mahazar was drawn on 01-11-2009 and thereafter one more mahazar was drawn on 20-12-2009. Further the rider of the motor cycle was not holding the valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to compensate the claimant. The insurance company disputed the occurrence of the accident on 18-10-2009 involving the insured vehicle and hence sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

The claimant in order to prove his case got examined himself as P.W.l, one alleged eye-witness was examined as P.W. 2 and the doctor who treated the claimant was examined as P.W.3 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. On behalf of the respondents, none of the witnesses were examined, however, the insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1.

The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration the wound certificate, copy of two mahazars, complaint and FIR held that the claimant has failed to prove that he has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 18-10-2009 at about 8.00 p.m. P.W.2 is only the eye-witness to the accident, but the police have not recorded the statement of the eye-witness, he was not the witness in the criminal case, accordingly dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition, the claimant has filed this appeal.

Srnt. Sowmya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Nagarajappa for appellant contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law. Necessary documents have been produced before the Tribunal to show that due to actionable negligence on the part of rider of the Hero Honda motorcycle, the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 18-10-2009. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Sira and thereafter he was shifted to District Hospital at Tumkur. He was discharged from the hospital on 23-10-2009. Further, Uncle of the claimant has filed the complaint before the jurisdictional police on 30-10-2009. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition is erroneous in law and hence sought for setting aside the same.

On the other hand, Sri. O. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and contended that in order to make unlawful gain, the insured vehicle has been falsely implicated though the insured vehicle has not dashed against the claimant. The records produced by the appellant itself clearly disclose that the claimant has not sustained any injury due to the accident. Hence sought for dismissal of the appeal.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties.

The case of the claimant is that on 18-10-2009, after purchasing some spare parts to his Tractor and Trailer at Amarapura, while he was returning to village and got down from the bus on 8.00 p.m., and proceeding towards his village, the offending vehicle dashed against him, due to which he sustained grievous injuries. His Uncle, Doddarangappa got him admitted to the hospital and he was discharged from the hospital on 23-10-2009 thereafter the complaint was lodged on 30-10-2009. In order to prove his case, P.W.2 was examined as eye-witness. P.W.2 in his evidence has stated that the offending motorcycle dashed against the claimant, due to which the claimant fell down and immediately after the accident he informed Doddarangappa regarding occurrence of the accident. Doddarangappa came there and got the claimant admitted to the hospital. The said eye-witness was not examined in the criminal case lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle. If P.W.2 had seen the occurrence of the accident, nothing prevented him to lodge a complaint before the jurisdictional police and make necessary statement. Though the Uncle of the claimant Doddarangappa took the claimant to the hospital, he could have lodged the complaint with the jurisdictional police immediately after the accident. After 13 days of the accident, Doddarangappa lodged the complaint. The reasons assigned by the claimant for the delay in lodging the complaint is that he was discharged from the hospital on 23-10-2009, thereafter he lodged a complaint on 30-10-2009. However, the records discloses that injured claimant has not lodged any complaint, whereas the Uncle Doddarangappa had lodged the complaint on 30-10-2009. Further, the vehicle was seized and panchanama was drawn 22 days after the accident.

Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to Government Hospital at Sira. While he was admitted in the hospital, he has not mentioned anything about the injuries due to road traffic accident. Subsequently he was shifted to District Hospital at Tumkur, in the said hospital also he has not mentioned anything about the road traffic accident. If the claimant had sustained injuries in the road traffic accident, the hospital authorities should have informed the same to the jurisdictional police The lodging of complaint after 13 days of the accident itself show that the claimant has sustained injuries somewhere else, and in order to get compensation, the insured vehicle has been falsely implicated. Further, though the owner of the vehicle was served with notice, he remained unrepresented. All these documents show that the insured vehicle has been falsely implicated in the accident. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence rejected the claim petition filed by the appellant. The appellant has not made out a case to interfere with the said judgment and award. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.