Raghu vs Appaji L.H. and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant-appellant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 18/11/2014, passed in MVC No. 97/2013, by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanagara, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short), wherein the claim petition filed by the appellant under Section 166 of M.V. Act is dismissed.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

"The appellant claims to be aged about 24 years and he was hale and healthy prior to the accident. That at about 8.00 p.m. on 1.4.2013, appellant was standing in front of his house, at that time, the rider of Hero Honda Passion Pro motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA.42.L.8523 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to him. Due to which, appellant sustained injuries on right leg and all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to private hospital and then shifted to Government Hospital, Ramangaram and thereafter, on the advise of the Doctor he has taken bed rest and follow up treatment." 3. It is the further case of the appellant that, he spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental charges. On account of the injuries sustained by the appellant, he has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing both sides and after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, has dismissed the said petition Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition, the appellant has presented this appeal.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant.

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition, on the ground that, there is a delay of 15 days in filing the complaint. He further submits that, appellant has clearly stated in his evidence about the accident, but the same has not been accepted by the Tribunal and has proceeded to dismiss the petition on hyper technical ground. Therefore, he submitted that he impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and reasonable compensation may be awarded on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it emerges that, it is the case of the appellant that on 1.4.2013 at about 8.00 p.m. he was standing in front of his house, at that time, the rider of Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA.42.L.8523 rode the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to him, due to which he fell down and sustained injuries. To prove the same, appellant has examined himself as PW1 and filed affidavit evidence in lieu of his examination-in-chief by reiterating the petition averments and deposed that due to rash and negligent act of the rider of the offending vehicle accident took place. He has produced six documents as per Exs.P1 to P6. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he has filed complaint on 15.4.2013 and at the time of accident he do not know the vehicle number which caused the accident. He further stated that on the date of accident he has taken treatment at Vijaya Clinic, but he has not produced any documents to prove the same.

Further it emerges after careful perusal of these contents of FIR, complaint, mahazar, chargesheet, wound certificate and IMV report as per Exs.P1 to P6 that, the accident in question was occurred on 1.4.2013, whereas, appellant has filed complaint only on 16.4.2013 and there was a delay of 15 days in filing the complaint and the said delay was not explained by him and therefore, it creates much doubt for the regarding involvement of offending vehicle in the alleged accident. Further, it emerges from the cross examination of the appellant that, after the accident, initially he went to Vijaya Clinic, where he took treatment, but he has not produced any documentary evidence to prove the same and he has also not examined the doctor who has treated him in Vijaya Clinic on the date of accident. Therefore, it creates doubt about the appellant taking treatment at Vijaya clinic on the date of alleged accident. Further, it emerges that, appellant has produced wound certificate as per Ex.P5 issued by the District Hospital, Ramangaram, which shows that, he took treatment only on 17.4.2013, whereas the alleged accident was occurred on 1.4.2013. If the accident has sustained injuries in the accident that occurred on 1.4.2013, he could have taken treatment immediately after accident in any one of the hospital, but evidence on record shows that he has not taken treatment immediately after the accident, but he took treatment after more than 16 days at Government Hospital and therefore, it creates much doubt about the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. Further, it can be seen that there is no clear evidence on record to show that injuries mentioned in the wound certificate are caused due to alleged accident. After perusal of the contents of FIR and other documentary evidence and the admission made by the appellant in the cross examination, it cannot be said that offending vehicle was involved in the alleged accident. Taking all these factors into consideration, the Tribunal has justified in dismissing the claim petition after assigning valid reasons in paras 16 to 18 of its judgment. Therefore, interference by this Court in a well considered judgment passed by the Tribunal is not called for, nor the appellant has made out any good grounds to entertain the relief sought in this appeal. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as devoid of merits.

Ordered accordingly.