Sanjay Kumar vs IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 7th October 2013, passed in MVC No. 6451/2011, by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-18), (for short, ''Tribunal''), on the ground that the Tribunal is not justified in dismissing the claim petition

The appellant claims to be aged about 18 years and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. It is the case of the appellant that he met with an accident at about 6:30 P.M. on 25-07-2011, when he was proceeding in a TVS Pep on Kogilu cross road, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Tractor bearing Registration No. KA-12/T-2901. Due to the impact, the appellant sustained grievous injuries and took treatment in the Hospital.

On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- against the Insurance Company and another. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 7th October, 2013. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition filed by appellant, holding that, there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and also the fact that the offending Tractor belongs to the uncle of the appellant and that it was fixed only to make unlawful gain as the appellant rode the TVS Pep and dashed against the Tractor which was parked near his house. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed the appeal before this Court, seeking to set aside the judgment and award passed by Tribunal and award reasonable compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident.

I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

Learned counsel appearing for appellant at the outset vehemently submitted that, the Tribunal grossly erred in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant, on hyper technical ground, without proper appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and recording a finding of fact that the Tractor belongs to the uncle of the appellant and in order to make unlawful gain, the said vehicle is fixed and that there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. The said reasoning given by Tribunal is contrary to the material on record and cannot be accepted for the reason that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration Ex. P8, Discharge summary, relating to Columbia Asia Hospital, where he took treatment on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. She submitted that, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the oral evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 and accepted the claim of the appellant and allowed the claim petition, awarding just and reasonable compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident. Therefore, she submitted that, the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the appellant may be awarded reasonable compensation on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident.

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for appellant, after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, and after due consideration of the entire material available on file, it can be seen that the Tribunal, after assessing the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and RW1 and documentary evidence at Exs. P1 to P13 and Ex. R1, after raising necessary issues for consideration and answering the same, has rightly dismissed the claim petition, by recording a specific finding of fact at paragraphs 13 and 14 of its judgment, elaborately.

The Tribunal has specifically observed at paragraph 14 of its judgment that, in the cross examination of RW1, it was elicited that, as per Ex. P8, discharge Summary relating to Columbia Asia Hospital, the accident has occurred between the two wheeler and the tractor. But, E.X. P12, the medical records relating to the same Hospital produced by the Consultant Ortho Surgeon of Columbia Asia Hospital clearly discloses that the appellant took the Scooty to learn and lost control over the same and had hit the parked tractor near his house. When that being the fact, Ex. P8 has been issued stating a different history of injuries which has remained unexplained. However, from the material on record, it is crystal clear that, there was inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and the offending tractor belongs to the uncle of the appellant and it was fixed only to make unlawful gain as the appellant rode the TVS and dashed against the Tractor which was parked near his house. Thus, recording the said finding, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

The said reasoning given by the Tribunal is just and proper and it proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the appellant has failed to substantiate his case in spite of affording sufficient opportunity. Therefore, the reasons assigned by Tribunal for dismissing the claim petition of the appellant are just and proper and it does not call for interference in the well considered and well reasoned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.

Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by appellant is liable to be dismissed as being devoid of merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

Office to draw award, accordingly.