M.C. Chandra vs S.V. Ravindra Kumar and Others

B. Manohar, J.—Appellant is the claimant, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 16th December 2009 made in MVC No. 329/2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Maddur, wherein the Trial Court has dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant seeking for compensation has filed this appeal.

The claimant filed the claim petition contending that on 7-7-2007 at about 1.30 p.m., the claimant along with his brother M.C. Jayakumara and one Venkatesh were proceeding towards Chapuradoddi bus stop for boarding the bus to their native place. At that time, a bus bearing registration No. KA-19/3339 driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner and at a high speed came from Maddur side in a zigzag manner and dashed against the claimant. In view of the said accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries to his head, right leg and right hand and other parts of the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to the Government Hospital at Maddur and after first aid, he was shifted to District Hospital at Mandya. On the advice of the doctors, he was shifted to Bhagavan Mahaveer Jain Hospital at Bangalore and treated there as inpatient and thereafter he was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital for further treatment. The claimant claims that he has sustained compound lateral condyle fracture of left humorous and dislocation of left elbow. He had undergone abrasion of left forearm with ORIF (open reduction with internal fixation) and also plastic surgery to left elbow. He has spent more than Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical expenditure and another Rs. 50,000/- towards attendant charges and conveyance charges. Prior to the accident, he was doing milk vending and earning more than Rs. 8,000/- p.m. On account of permanent disability to left arm and right elbow he cannot do the work of milk vending and agriculture operations. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus its driver and sought for compensation of Rs. 12,14,000/- with interest at 18% p.a.

Though the first respondent/owner of the bus was served with notice he remained unrepresented. The second respondent-insurer appeared and filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also contended that the bus bearing registration No. KA-19/3339 was not insured with them as on the date of the accident. Further the bus has not met with any accident and it was falsely implicated. The police records have been built up only to claim the compensation and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. The claimant in order to prove his case examined himself as P.W. 1 and got marked the documents as Ex. P1 to Ex. P8. Dr. K.P. Mariswamy, Retired Medical Officer of Mandya Hospital was examined as P.W. 2 and got marked the documents as Ex. P9 to Ex. P11. On behalf of the respondents, none of the witnesses were examined, nor has any document been marked.

The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and taking into consideration police records found that initially, while the claimant was admitted in the Government Hospital at Maddur, in the MLC register maintained in the Government Hospital, it was entered that the claimant sustained injuries by virtue of two wheeler hit by bus. One Ashwath, rider brought the injured person to Maddur Government Hospital. However, in the claim petition as well as in the evidence, the claimant has contended that while they were proceeding towards bus stop, the bus dashed against him and sustained injuries and his younger brother Jayakumara had taken him to the hospital and on the next day, the complaint was lodged before the jurisdictional Police. In the wound certificate-Ex. P3 issued by Maddur Government Hospital, it was clearly mentioned that the injured person was accompanied by one Ashwath. There is clear mentioning in the MLC register that the injury was due to the collision between the motorcycle and the bus. However, the case pleaded and evidence adduced by the claimant is contrary to the police records. If the brother of the claimant Sri.Jayakumar was accompanying the claimant, while they were proceeding towards bus stop, nothing prevented Jayakumar to take the claimant to the hospital for treatment and lodge a complaint before the jurisdictional police. The register maintained in the Government Hospital clearly discloses that the injured person was accompanied by one Ashwath, who was the rider of a motorbike. Hence, it is clear that the claimant was proceeding in a two wheeler ridden by one Ashwath who brought him to the hospital, whose name has been mentioned in the Accident Register maintained in the Hospital. The presence of Jayakumara at the time of occurrence of the accident was not at all established by producing the necessary documents. The Tribunal taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter dismissed the claim petition holding that the claimant has failed to establish that he has sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus and dismissed the claim petition by its judgment and award dated 16th December 2009. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant has preferred this appeal.

Sri. K.M. Sanath Kumara, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition is on hyper technical ground. The records maintained in the hospital clearly disclose that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred between the two wheeler and the bus. His brother Jayakumara while lodging the complaint before the jurisdictional police has stated that the claimant, along with Jayakumara and Venkatesh were proceeding towards bus-stop, and at that time the offending bus dashed against the claimant and he sustained injuries. The Tribunal lost sight of the entry made in the accident register maintained in the hospital that the accident occurred on account of collision between the scooter and the bus. Hence, the claimant is entitled for compensation. The Tribunal ought not to have considered the minor discrepancies and denied the compensation to the claimant and sought for allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

On the other hand, Sri. S.N. Ashwathnarayana, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

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

The case set up by the claimant is that on 7-7-2007, the claimant along with his brother M.C. Jayakumar and Venkatesh were proceeding towards the Chapuradoddi bus stop to board the bus. At that time, a bus bearing registration No. KA-19/3339 driven by its driver in the rash and negligent manner dashed against the claimant and he sustained injuries. Immediately after the accident, his brother Jayakumara shifted him to Maddur Government Hospital and thereafter he was taken to the District Hospital Mandya and thereafter to Bhagavan Mahaveer Jain Hospital at Bangalore and from there to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital for better treatment. The MLC register maintained in the Maddur Government Hospital clearly discloses that one Ashwath, rider of the motorcycle brought the claimant to the Hospital for treatment. In the Accident Register, it was entered that, in view of the accident between the two wheeler and bus, the claimant has sustained injuries. Further, a police complaint has been lodged on the next day i.e. on 8-7-2007 by the brother of the claimant Mr. Jayakumara. The Accident Register extract-Ex. P11 produced by the claimant clearly discloses that he has sustained injuries while he was traveling in a two wheeler along with one Venkatesh and Ashwath. The three persons were traveling in a scooter. In view of that, accident had occurred and the claimant sustained injuries. The truth facts has been entered in the accident register as stated by Mr. Ashwath. However, the case set up by the claimant is totally something else. The complaint was lodged before the jurisdictional police on the next day at about 1.30 p.m. The complainant stated that, along with the injured person, he and Venkatesh were proceeding towards bus-stop by walking on the left side of the road and at that time, the offending vehicle dashed against the claimant and sustained injuries. The said statement is falsified by the entry made in the MLC register maintained in the Government Hospitals at Maddur and Mandya. In order to get the compensation, a false case has been set up in collision with the police. The Tribunal after considering the matter in detail disbelieved the case of the claimant and dismissed the claim petition. I find no infirmity or irregularity in the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and the claimant has not approached the court with clean hands. With a view to get the compensation, a false case has been set up. The appellant has not made out a case to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and he is not entitled to any compensation. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.