Khathizamma @ Kadeejamma vs Shridhar Ganiga

Mr. B. Manohar, J.—Appellant being the claimant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 4th September 2015 made in MVC No. 1424/2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'' for short) whereby the Tribunal had dismissed claim petition filed by her.

The appellant filed a claim petition inter alia contending that on 28-02-2011, at about 7.30 a.m., she was proceeding in a Car bearing Registration No. KA-19/NTTR-14727 along with her brother and sister-in-law from Mangaluru towards B.C.Road. When the car reached near Kembar of Alape village, a lorry bearing Registration No. KA-19/A-2153 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the car. Due to that, the claimant sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, she was shifted to Dental Specialty Clinic at B.C. Road where she was treated by Dr. Y. Rajmohan Shetty. X-rays were taken, scanning was done, sutures were done, bandages were put to the injuries. Thereafter she had taken follow up treatment at KMC Hospital at Mangaluru. Still there is severe pain and she has not recovered from the injuries. Therefore, on 26-03-2011 she got admitted to Indira Hospital for treatment. She has spent huge money for the treatment. Further, she required Rs. 1,50,000/- for the future medical expenses, she is required to replace lower teeth. She has suffered permanent disability. At the time of accident, she was aged about 45 years and earning Rs. 30,000/- p.m., as a partner of the Firm, sought for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/''-.

In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondent Nos. 1 and 3 remained unrepresented. Respondent No. 2 filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also disputed the occurrence of the accident and injuries sustained by the claimant. There is no nexus between the date of accident and the date of treatment she has taken. In order to get the compensation from the insurance company, though the accident occurred on 28-2-2011, she got admitted to Indira Hospital on 26-03-2011, thereafter records were built up, MLC was sent to the jurisdictional police and case was registered after lapse of more than one month. Hence sought for dismissal of the claim petition. Respondent No. 4 in their written statement denied the occurrence of the accident on 28-2-2011 and the injuries sustained by the claimant.

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

The claimant got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. On behalf of the respondents, the legal officer of the insurance company was examined as R.W. 1 and ARTO was examined as R.W.2 and got marked the documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R10.

The claimant in her evidence has clearly stated that the accident occurred on 28-2-2011. However, she was admitted to Indira Hospital on 26-03-2011, thereafter MLC register was sent to the jurisdictional police, the police registered a case and prepared spot sketch and mahazar. In the cross-examination she has clearly admitted that, she has not lodged any complaint before the jurisdictional police on 28-2-2011. While taking treatment in Bantwal she has not informed regarding the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. She further admitted that she has not taken any treatment at K.M.C. Hospital as an out-patient. The records clearly disclose that on the basis of the complaint lodged on 26-3-2011, the police records have been built up. The medical bills and prescriptions all are subsequent to 26-3-2011. The Tribunal raking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, rejected the claim petition holding that the claimant has foiled to prove the occurrence of the accident on 23-2-2011 and she has sustained injuries in the said accident. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred this appeal.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by Sri. G. Ravishankar Shastry, the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and other relevant records.

The claim of the appellant is that while she was proceeding from Mangaluru to B.C.Road in a car, the offending lorry dashed against the said Car due to which she has sustained injuries. She claims that she has taken treatment at Bantwal. One month after the accident, she got admitted to Indira Hospital to take treatment for the injuries sustained on 28-2-2011. Thereafter, MLC was sent to jurisdictional police to register a case against the offending vehicle. If the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident on 28-2-2011, nothing prevented her to lodge a complaint before the jurisdictional police. On the other band, she got admitted to the hospital on 26-3-2011, thereafter the records have been concocted to show that she has taken treatment for the injuries she has sustained in the road traffic accident. If the claimant has sustained any injuries to her jaw and loss of four teeth, she would have taken treatment immediately after the accident. She would not wait for a month to take treatment. The Ex.P. 14 and Ex.P15 are concocted documents set up by the claimant to claim compensation from the insurance company contending that she was the partner of some Firm. On the other hand, she had admitted before the police that she is a housewife. On 26-3-2011 she had taken treatment for only one day. The doctor who treated the claimant was also not examined to prove the injuries sustained by her in the accident. The Tribunal taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter rejected the claim petition. I find no infirmity or irregularity in the finding of the Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition. The appellant has not made out a case to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.