AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J.—This appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful claimants whose claim petition in MVC No. 2244/2011 is dismissed vide Judgment and Award dated 26.3.2013 by the learned Member, Principal MACT., Bengaluru (''Tribunal'' for short).
Brief facts:
Appellants presented a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (''Act'' for short) contending inter alia that the husband of the first appellant Veluswamy sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident on 11.12.2010 when his motor cycle (KA-51-6281) dashed against a tempo traveller bearing registration No. KA-04-B-6859 and succumbed to the injuries on 13.12.2010.
The petition was contested by the Insurer contending that the alleged tempo traveller vehicle was not involved in the accident but claimants have falsely implicated the same.
Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal framed following issues for its consideration:-
"1) Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Veluswamy succumbed to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.12.2010 at about 09.10 p.m., near Chandapura Circle, Bangalore-Hosur Road, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District on account of rash and negligent driving of Tempo Traveller bearing registration No. KA.04/B.6859 by its driver?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3) What order?
On behalf of the appellants, 8 witnesses were examined and 27 documents marked. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined and one document marked. On consideration of the material on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the petition as not maintainable. Hence, this appeal.
We have heard Smt. G.K. Sreevidya, learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri B.C. Shivannegowda, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 and perused the material papers as also the Trial Court records.
Learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently contends that the Tribunal grossly erred in coming to the conclusion that they had miserably failed to prove the involvement of tempo traveller vehicle bearing registration No. KA-04-B-6859 in the accident. Assailing the correctness of Tribunal''s reasoning, she submits that the Tribunal was swayed by the testimony of P.W. 4 alone and did not correctly appreciate depositions of other witnesses and other attending circumstances. She submits that the appellants have examined 8 witnesses and produced large number of documents, which have been brushed aside by the Tribunal. She further contends that this is a genuine case of a road traffic accident and the appellants are lawfully entitled for the compensation. Accordingly, prays for allowing this appeal.
Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurer supporting the judgment and award of the Tribunal, strongly contends that there is no nexus with the injuries said to have been sustained by the victim and the vehicle namely, the tempo traveller which has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the principal witness namely, P.W. 4 who is projected as an eye witness has admitted in his cross - examination that he had not seen the accident. In such circumstances, the entire case of the appellants false to ground.
Learned Counsel for the Insurer adverting to the detailed reasoning given by the Tribunal from paragraphs No. 16 to 21 submits that this is a classic case of manipulation in which the appellants/claimants have unsuccessfully attempted to project that the victim Veluswamy died due to injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. He submits that the Tribunal has come to the right conclusion in dismissing the petition. Not being satisfied with the judgment of dismissal by the Tribunal, appellants have preferred this appeal, which has resulted in loss of enormous valuable time and resources of the Tribunal as also of this Court. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of this appeal with exemplary costs.
We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused records.
It is settled law that registration of a complaint/FIR sets the law into motion. Admittedly, according to the claimants/appellants, P.W. 4 is the Complainant/eye witness. We have carefully perused the testimony of P.W. 4. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that the victim - Veluswamy fell down from the vehicle and sustained injuries on his head, hands, face and other parts of the body; victim was taken to Victoria Hospital by some public and admitted as an in-patient; and that the said accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo traveller. However, he has buckled in the cross - examination and admitted that he had not seen the accident and he did not know how it had occurred. He has further admitted that when he had gone to the Victoria Hospital, the person whom he saw and identified was one of his friends namely, Chandra Reddy. He has further admitted that he was informed by the police that the body which he had seen was not that of Chandra Reddy. He has also admitted that he was not aware of anything about the death of Veluswamy before he was informed by the police.
In the claim petition, the date and time of accident is mentioned as 11.12.2010 at 9.10 a.m. Ex. P24 is the accident register of Victoria Hospital, which discloses that a patient was admitted on 12.12.2010. The learned Tribunal has discussed the issues in - extenso and meticulously examined the probabilities in the case. According to the appellants, the accident has occurred on 11.12.2010. But, P.W. 4 who is projected as an eyewitness has admitted that he has not witnessed the incident at all. Medical records commence from the following day i.e., 12.12.2010. The learned Tribunal has adverted to the testimony of P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 who have deposed about the injuries sustained by the victim and recorded a finding that the said witnesses have stated that the victim has suffered injuries on head, hands, face, legs, shoulder, shoulder region and other parts of the body and the photograph of the dead body and other papers produced by the police do not disclose anything about the injury on the head and a bandage was found only on the wrist of both hands.
In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the finding of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to the authenticity of occurrence of the accident. Having re-examined the oral and documentary evidence on record, we concur with the view taken by the learned Tribunal. Resultantly, the instant appeal fails and accordingly, stands dismissed.
No costs.