Syed Imam vs Sri. Parameshwarappa

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the appellant-claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 30/01/2010 passed in MVC No. 139/2006, by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Harihar, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short). The Tribunal by its judgment and award, has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant on account of the injuries-sustained by him in the accident.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

The appellant claims to be aged about 44 years and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. That on 10.1.2002 at about 8.00 a.m. he was going on his motorbike and when he was passing through the accident spot at about 8.30 a.m. respondent came from opposite direction on his motor cycle and dashed to him. Due to which, he suffered severe injuries on his face, nose etc. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Harihar and then to Bapuji Hospital, Davangere and he was treated in ICU till 25.1.2002, due to his admission, no MLC case was registered or the complaint was lodged by him. Taking undue advantage of this, respondent himself has filed a complaint against the appellant stating that the said accident had taken place, he faced the trial and a acquitted.

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 petition. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition, the appellant has presented this appeal.

We have perused the grounds urged by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal and heard learned counsel appearing for respondent.

The specific ground urged by the appellant is that, the dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal is not well founded and the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts on record in arriving to the conclusion and the same will not fit into the circumstances of the case. It is further urged that, appellant has met with an accident, sustained severe injuries, he was first treated in Government Hospital and thereafter, shifted for better treatment to ICU at Bapuji Hospital, where he took treatment as inpatient from 10.1.2002 to 25.1.2002. Since neither the appellant nor his family members are not educated persons and has no worldly knowledge as the appellant was unable to move, he could not file complaint immediately. The findings of the Tribunal that he was expected to file private complaint before the Court of law or complaint before higher authorities with regard to injuries caused to him is not well founded and Tribunal has failed to see that he was being treated at the Bapuji Hospital, by which time, respondent has already filed the complaint against him, for which, he was also faced the trial and acquitted for the charges under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. Further, it is urged that, the Tribunal has failed to afford sufficient opportunity to him to prove his case and the fact that respondent who has caused the accident in order to save his skin has lodged the false complaint against him. The reasoning given by the Tribunal is contrary to the material available on file. Hence, he prayed to modify the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, inter-alia, contended and substantiated that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and after assigning valid reasons in paras 11 and 12 of its judgment and it does not call for interference. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the appeal as devoid of merits. After going through the grounds urged by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal, after hearing the learned counsel for the respondent and after perusing the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, we do not find any error or illegality, much less material irregularity committed by the Tribunal in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant. The Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the material available on record has recorded the finding of fact in para-12 of the judgment to the effect that, admittedly, the respondent had put the law in motion immediately against the appellant stating that the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the injured himself. In fact, it is an admitted fact that, the injured has faced the trial before the Criminal Court and got acquitted. There may be several reasons for acquittal of the appellant in criminal case. When the appellant claims the compensation from the respondent on account of accidental injuries caused to him due to rash and negligent driving, then the first and foremost duty of appellant is to establish the rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent which has not been done by him in this case. Nor he has produced any documents viz., FIR, Mahazar, IMV report etc. to prove his case. Taking advantage of the provisions of the MV Act, filing a claim petition against the respondent by the appellant is not justifiable and accordingly, dismissed the petition. The reasoning given by the Tribunal for dismissing the petition is just and reasonable and therefore, it does not call for interference. Nor we find any merit in this appeal. Even the appellant has not made out any good grounds or justification to entertain the relief sought in this appeal. Hence, we decline to entertain the relief sought in this appeal and accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as devoid of merits.