Sri. Raju @ Rajanna vs Sri. Chikkanna & Anr.

Appellant is the claimant, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 27th November 2009 passed in MVC No.605/2007 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Kunigal (for short ''Tribunal''), dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant, has filed this appeal.

The appellant filed a claim petition contending that on 01.04.2007 at about 6.30 p.m., while he was proceeding in his bicycle at Urkehalli Chotanahalli road, near the garden land of Lakkaiah a Tractor-Trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-06-T-9288/9289 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner from Chotanahalli side and dashed against the bicycle, due to that the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the claimant took treatment in CHC Kunigal. Thereafter, he has taken treatment at NIMHANS, Bengaluru and subsequently he continued his treatment at General Hospital, Tumkur. In the claim petition, the claimant claimed that prior to the accident he was maintaining good health and was working in the sugarcane crusher and earning Rs.300/- per day. In addition to that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per annum from the agricultural work. In view of the injuries sustained, he is permanently disabled to attend his regular work. Hence, he sought for compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

The Insurance Company alone defended the case by filing written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also contended that the insured vehicle is not involved in the accident. Subsequently, the insured vehicle was falsely implicated in this case in order to make unlawful gain. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

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

The claimant in order to prove his case got examined himself as PW1. The doctor who has treated the claimant was examined as PW2 and two eyewitnesses examined as PW3 and PW4 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P19. On behalf of the Insurance Company, one witness is examined as RW1 and got marked Ex.R1 to R5.

After trial, the Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties, taking into consideration the injuries sustained by the claimant held that the vehicle i.e., Tractor-Trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-06/T-9288-9289 is not involved in the accident and the damages to the said vehicle also not visible. However, the eyewitnesses were examined as PW3 and PW4, in their evidence have categorically stated that they have not seen the occurrence of the accident. Though the wife of the claimant has lodged the complaint against the driver of the Tractor-Trailer bearing Reg. No.KA-06-T-9213/9214, the police have filed chargesheet against driver of tractor and trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-06/T-9288-9289. The claimant has failed to establish that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA- 06-T-9288/9289 is involved in the accident and hence, dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant preferred this appeal.

Sri. M.V.Maheshwarappa, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law. Initially, the complaint has been lodged against the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-06/T-9213-9214. Subsequently, police after conducting the enquiry, found that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-o6-T-9288/ 9289 is involved in the accident and accordingly chargesheet has been filed against the said vehicle. Originally, the complaint has been lodged by the wife of the claimant and she, by oversight had given wrong number of the vehicle. The occurrence of the accident, injuries sustained by the claimant and treatment taken by the claimant in the hospital is not in dispute. The voluminous documents has been produced to show that the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable in law and suffers from errors and hence, liable to be set aside.

On the other hand, Sri. M. Narayanappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 argued in support of the judgment and award and contended that the insured vehicle is not involved in the accident. Immediately after the accident, wife of the claimant lodged the complaint and stating that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-06-T-9213/9214 was involved in the accident. Subsequently, while filing the chargesheet, the police have filed chargesheet against the insured vehicle, though it was not involved in the accident. It appears that the vehicle involved in the accident is not covered by the insurance policy. Subsequently, the insured vehicle was falsely implicated in this case in order to make unlawful gain. The Tribunal taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter has dismissed the claim petition. Therefore, there is no infirmity or irregularity in the judgment and award passed by the tribunal and hence question of interference by this court does not arise and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties.

The claimant filed claim petition contending that due to the actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the Tractor-Trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-06-T- 9288/9289, the accident occurred. However, the wife of the claimant lodged complaint before the jurisdictional police stating that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-06-T- 9213/9214 is involved in the accident. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR has been filed by the jurisdictional police. However, while filing the chargesheet, the insured vehicle has been implicated, but no document has been produced to show that the insured vehicle has been involved in the accident. Though the claimant had examined two eyewitnesses, namely Boregowda and Manjunath as PW3 and PW4 to prove the said aspect, PW3-Boregowda in his crossexamination has categorically admitted that he is not the eyewitness to the accident and he went to the spot after the accident. Further, PW4-Manjunath, who was examined as one of the eyewitness before the police, has categorically admitted that he was not present at the spot when the accident occurred. Subsequently, he went to the spot. Except the self assertion of the claimant, no documents have been produced to substantiate that the insured vehicle has been involved in the accident. If the wife of the claimant has furnished wrong number of the vehicle involved in the accident, nothing prevented the claimant to file additional complaint, stating the correct vehicle number, involved in the accident. No such attempt is made. Even though the person who investigated the case also has not been examined to prove that the insured vehicle was involved in the accident, the Tribunal taking into consideration all other aspects of the matter has dismissed the claim petition. I find that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. However, no material has been produced before this Court to prove that the insured vehicle has been involved in the accident, except the self-assertion of the claimant. No ground has been made out by the appellant to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.