AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Manohar, J.—In this appeal, appellant is challenging the judgment and award dated 28th January 2008 made in M.V.C. No. 262/2006 passed by the I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karwar (for short ''the Tribunal''), rejecting the claim petition filed by him.
Appellant filed the claim petition contending that on 29.12.2005, while he was proceeding as a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-30/H-5236 from Kavalakki to Hadinbal, near the place of Makki of Hadinbal, a cow suddenly came across the road and, in order to avoid the accident, the rider of the motor bike suddenly applied the brake due to which the motor bike skid and fell turtling into a ditch. Due to the said accident, he sustained grievous injuries to his body. He was shifted to Sree Devi Hospital of Honnavar and took treatment in the said hospital as an inpatient from 29.12.2005 to 13.01.2006. He claimed that he spent more than Rs. 50,000/- towards medical treatment. Prior to the accident he was working as a coolie earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. Hence, he sought for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-.
Though the owner of the motor bike was served with the notice, he remained unrepresented and hence he was placed ex parte. The insurer of the motor bike filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and the occurrence of the accident. The insurer contended that the rider of the motor bike did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and that the risk of the pillion rider of the said motor bike was not covered under the policy. Further, it was contended that the claim petition was filed in collusion with the owner of the motor bike and the police. Therefore, the insurer contended that it was not liable to compensate the claimant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. The claimant, in order to prove his case, got himself examined as P.W.1 and examined Dr. B. Suresh Shetty as P.W.2 and got the documents marked as Exs. P.1 to P.6. On behalf of the insurance company, its Officer was examined as R.W.1 and two documents were marked as Exs. R.1 and R.2.
The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence and taking into consideration the fact that a private complaint was filed on 02.05.2006 that is more than 5 months after the date of the alleged accident and having found that the claimant had not proved that he sustained the injuries due to the alleged accident, held the issue framed against him and accordingly dismissed the claim petition by its judgment and award dated 28th January 2008. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant has filed this appeal.
Shri. M.L. Vanti, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and evidence on record. The Tribunal has not taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence produced by the appellant and the police records which shows that the police had registered a criminal case against the rider of motor bike. Further, the charge-sheet filed against the rider of the motor bike was not challenged either by the owner of the motor bike or by the insurer. The Tribunal also did not take into consideration the fact that immediately after the accident on 29.12.2005, the appellant had sent a complaint through post, but the police failed to register the case. After recovering from the injuries alleged to have been sustained in the accident that occurred on 29.12.2005, appellant lodged a private complaint on 02.05.2006. The Tribunal without taking into consideration the above aspects has dismissed the claim petition which is contrary to law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant relies on a decision of the Apex Court in Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Others, and submits that the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition is contrary to law and sought for allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and award.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company argued in support of the impugned judgment and award and contended that the appellant had failed to prove that he sustained injuries in the alleged traffic accident that occurred on 29.12.2005. In the absence of necessary document, the Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the claimant failed to prove the accident and that the injuries sustained by the appellant were as a result of the said accident. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the parties, perused the judgment and award and oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties.
The specific contention of the appellant is that on 29.12.2005, while he was proceeding on the motor bike from Kavalakki to Hadinbal, as a pillion rider, the rider of the motor bike suddenly applied brake in order to avoid collision against the cow which came across the road, and thereby the motor bike skid and fell down turtle into a ditch, as a result of which, he sustained injuries and was taken to Sree Devi Hospital, Honnavar for treatment. At the time of his admission into Sree Devi Hospital, the appellant has not mentioned anything about the road traffic accident alleged to have occurred on 29.12.2005. Further, no complaint was lodged before the jurisdictional police. However, a private complaint came to be lodged on 02.05.2006 i.e., more than 5 months after the alleged accident. In a normal course, in road traffic accident cases, when the victims are admitted into the hospital, the officials of the hospital would register a medico-legal case and inform the same to the jurisdictional police, who would come to the hospital, take the statement of the victim, register a complaint and investigate the matter. In the instant case, no medico-legal case is registered. The medico-legal case register has also not been produced in the instant case. Further, the occurrence of the accident is not informed to the police. No document has been produced to show that the injuries sustained by the appellant were because of the alleged road traffic accident that occurred on 29.12.2005 and he took treatment in the said hospital. The doctor, who is examined, has deposed in his evidence that he has given treatment from 29.12.2005 to 13.01.2006 for the fracture of shaft of left femur. Further, the police have conducted spot panchanama only on filing of the private complaint on 02.05.2006 i.e., after five months of the date of accident. The Motor Vehicle Inspector has not examined the vehicle, on which the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider and which is said to have met with the alleged road traffic accident resulting in claimant sustaining the injuries. The claimant in the cross-examination has stated that except filing private complaint he has not lodged any complaint to the police regarding occurrence of the accident. Taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, the Tribunal has held that the claimant failed to prove the occurrence of the accident on 29.12.2005. The Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition.
The appellant has not made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. Even before this Court, appellant has not produced any document to show that the injuries sustained by him were as a result of the accident involving the motor cycle in question. In the absence of necessary document the case of the appellant cannot be accepted. The judgment relied upon the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal.
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.