Y. Rudrappa vs Ravikumar

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 13th December 2013, passed in MVC No. 18/2010, by the Senior Civil Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IX, Harapanahalli, (for short, ''Tribunal''), for awarding reasonable compensation on the ground that, the Tribunal is not justified in dismissing the claim petition.

The appellant claims to be aged about 50 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 3:30 A.M. on 15-06-2008 when he was returning from Huvinahadagali towards Harapanhalli on his motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-35/G-3873, near Adidurgamma temple, Harapanahalli, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Maruthi Car bearing Registration No. KA-24/M-643, which was coming from Harapanahalli towards Huvinahadagalli. Due to the impact, the appellant sustained grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to Government General Hospital, Harapanahalli and later shifted to City Central Hospital, DaCaragere, where he was treated as inpatient from 15-06-2008 till 04-08-2008.

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. 21,86,819/- against the Insurance Company and two others. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 13th December, 2013.

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellant at the outset is that, the Tribunal has committed a grave error, resulting in serious miscarriage of justice inasmuch as it has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant on hyper technical grounds, stating that the appellant himself has admitted in his statement in IMV report that the accident occurred due to his negligence. Mere admission by the injured appellant does not take away the legitimate entitlement of compensation by the appellant, for the grievous injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident, for the reason that the appellant has produced the wound Certificate at Ex. P4, in order to prove the nature of injuries sustained by him and also the medical bills at Exs. P7 to 104 and also Ex. P105-discharge summary to show that he took treatment for the said injuries in the Hospital.

He further vehemently submitted that, the Police, after due investigation, have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the Maruti Car involved in the accident, which is a conclusive proof to establish that it on the negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruti Car that the accident has occurred and there is no negligence on the part of the appellant. This aspect of the matter has not been looked into nor considered nor appreciated by the Tribunal, while dismissed the claim petition, without awarding any compensation. The reasoning given by Tribunal is contrary to the oral and documentary evidence available on file. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be set aside, by awarding just and reasonable compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident.

After going through the material available on file, including the pleadings of the parties and after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, the only point that arise for my consideration in this appeal is,

"Whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the claim petition?" 6. After going through the entire material available on file, there is no dispute regarding the occurrence of accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant. It is seen that the Tribunal, after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has dismissed the claim petition filed by appellant by assigning valid and cogent reasons and also recording a specific finding of fact at paragraphs 10 to 18 of its judgment, holding that the accident has occurred only on account of the negligent act of the appellant himself and there is no further proof required.

It can further be seen that, at the earliest point of time, information was supplied to the Hospital authority by none other than the appellant himself to the effect that in an attempt to over take Madator Van, accidentally his bike hit against Maruthi Car. Even though FIR has been registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by an eye witness, if evidence of P.W.3 is taken into consideration, possibility of witnessing the said accident by him is too remote. Under the said circumstances, the oral testimony of P.W.3 is excluded and then only the statement given by the injured before Hospital authority gains significance. The Police might have submitted Charge-sheet against respondent No. 1. But when the appellant himself at the earliest point of time has given the information that accident occurred while he was overtaking Matador Car, it cannot be discarded lightly. P.W.3 has deposed to the effect that he had seen passing of a Matador Car before the accident. So one thing is very clear that Matador Car was passing on that road just before the accident. According to the injured while he was overtaking Matador Car accidentally, his bike hit against Maruthi Car. It is not in dispute that Maruthi Car was coming from Harapanahalli side i.e., from opposite direction. Appellant was riding his motorbike towards Harapanahalli. P.W.1 deposed to the effect that there was head-on collision. Ex. P5 is IMV Report. As per IMV report, the Maruthi Car had sustained following damages.

"1. Front left side head light, bumper damaged.

Front left side bonnet shape damaged."

Whereas motorbike bearing Reg. No. KA-35/G-3873 had sustained following damages-

Left side bumper damaged.

Front left side foot rug bent.

Front left side indicator damaged."

If the statement given by the injured claimant/appellant given before Hospital authorities is taken into consideration, then it can be inferred that the damages could be caused only in the event as stated by the appellant. If Maruthi Car was coming with high speed from opposite direction, certainly the motorbike would have sustained more damages than this. A perusal of the IMV report indicates that the appellant himself dashed against the Maruthi Car, in an attempt to over take one Matador Van. That being the position, there is no possibility of head-on collision between motorbike and Maruthi Car. Merely because the Investigating Officer is not examined on that count alone, entry in MLC register cannot be discarded, when injured claimant himself has admitted to the effect that the accident in question has occurred due to his negligence. Hence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no further proof required.

Further, it was noticed that the motorcycle of the injured claimant was not insured with any Insurance Company and therefore, a case was registered against the driver of the Maruthi Car, so as to get compensation is acceptable. On total assessment of the evidence placed on record, the Tribunal was of the view that the accident occurred due to negligent riding of the motorbike by the appellant himself. Accordingly it answered the first issue in the ''Negative'' holding that the appellant has utterly failed to prove that the accident occurred on account of the negligent act of the driver of the Maruthi Car and not on account of the fault of the appellant and further held that as per the IMV report, the appellant himself dashed against the Maruthi Car in an attempt to over take on Matador van.

Further, it can be seen that as per Ex. P4 -Wound certificate and the discharge summary, the appellant had sustained following injuries.

"1. Left LL fracture femur

Fracture of tibial condyle

Fracture both bones middle 1/3rd

Vascular injury"

The appellant was treated as in-patient from 15/06/2008 till 04/08/2008. There are medical bills amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/-. The Doctor who treated the appellant was examined as P.W.2. P.W.2 has assessed disability of 45% on left lower limb. As far as right lower limb is concerned, disability is assessed at 10% to 15%. Ex. P.134 is the Disability Certificate. It has come in the evidence that appellant is working as PDO at present. It has also come in the evidence that he is drawing more salary than before the date of accident. Under the said circumstances, the Tribunal held that there is no question of loss of future earning and certainly the appellant has been put to great inconvenience and discomfort on account of accidental injuries and there is evidence to show that he was working as Panchayat Secretary on the date of the accident and drawing a sum of Rs. 12,574/- per month as salary. There is evidence to show that he was holding agricultural lands. Further, the Tribunal, after going through the legal principles laid down in the decisions cited by the learned counsel appearing for appellant, and also the fact that since the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the appellant himself, came to the final conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to any compensation and there is no fault on the part of respondent No. 1 as driver of Maruthi Car. Since appellant failed to prove the negligence on the part of respondent No. 1, he is not entitled to receive any compensation. Accordingly the Tribunal answered Issue Nos. 2 and 3 also in the negative and Issue No. 4 partly in the affirmative and issue No. 5 in the Negative.

The discussion, reasoning and finding given by the Tribunal from paragraphs 10 to 18 are after critical evaluation of the entire material available on its file and the same being just, fair and proper, I do not find any justification or good ground to interfere in the well considered and well reasoned judgment and award passed by Tribunal. Hence, interference in the same is unwarranted.

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.