Karnataka High Court
Vinod K vs Jakeer Hussain Medleri on 31 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30561
MFA No. 5694 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5694 OF 2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
VINOD K.,
S/O NINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT AMARAVATHY VILLAGE,
HARIHAR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE-577 601.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAKASH H C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. JAKEER HUSAIN MEDLERI,
S/O ABDUL KARIM SAB,
TIPPU NAGAR,
RATTI HALLI VILLAGE,
Digitally signed by
PRAJWAL A HEREKERUR TALUK,
Location: HIGH COURT HAVERI-560 008.
OF KARNATAKA
2. SHANAWAJ AWAJ M MASUR
S/O MEHABOOB SAB,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O RATTIHALLI VILLAGE,
HIEREKERUR TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT-560 008.
3. THE MANAGER,
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30561
MFA No. 5694 of 2013
MOKTALI BUILDING,
KSRTC BUS STAND,
HAVERI-581 110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SREEKANTA RAO L., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 4.5.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.148/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HARIHAR, DISMISSING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal of the claim petition in MVC No.148/2010 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Harihar, by judgment dated 04.05.2013. ('the Tribunal' for short).
2. The appellant was the petitioner and respondents were the respondents before the Tribunal. For the sake of -3- NC: 2024:KHC:30561 MFA No. 5694 of 2013 convenience, the rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are, on 16.12.2009 at about 3.30 p.m., near old P.B.Road of Harihar infront of Nandi Petrol Bunk, while the petitioner was riding the TVS Scooty bearing registration No.KA-17 X 9316 as pillion rider, a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-17 Q 8554 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Scooty. Due to which, the petitioner has sustained the injuries. After taking treatment at Shri. Basveshwara Health Center, Davanagere, the petitioner has filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, claim was opposed by the respondent No.3-insurance company. The tribunal by taking evidence and on hearing both the parties by impugned judgment dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:30561 MFA No. 5694 of 2013
4. Heard the arguments of Sri. Prakash H.C., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sreekanta Rao L., learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.3-insurance company.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR was filed within 24 hours indicating the vehicle number as KA-27-Q-8564. The vehicle involved in the accident was actually bearing registration No.KA-27-Q-8554 and for this reason, the Investigating Officer has seized the said vehicle and subjected the said vehicle for inspection and after investigation, charge sheet was filed. In the charge sheet also there is a mistake in mentioning the vehicle number and for this reason, the petitioner has examined the Investigating Officer, who has stated before the tribunal that the mistake in the registration number of the vehicle mentioned in the charge sheet is due to over sight. Hence, the petitioner has placed the evidence in proof of involvement of vehicle bearing -5- NC: 2024:KHC:30561 MFA No. 5694 of 2013 No.KA-27-Q-8554 in the accident in question but for the discrepancy in the FIR and the charge sheet, the tribunal has erroneously taken that the registration number of the vehicle as KA-27-Q-8564 and dismissed the claim petition and he sought for assessment of the compensation.
6. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-insurance company has contended that the accident involving the pulsar motorcycle bearing No.KA-27-Q-8564 as mentioned in the complaint, as well as in the charge sheet. The claim is made against the Hero Honda motorcycle and not against the pulsar motorcycle. By tampering the statement, the registration number of the vehicle has been changed from KA-27-Q-8564 to KA-27- Q-8554. Tribunal has rightly observed that the vehicle involved in the accident was Pulsar bearing registration No.KA-27-Q-8564 whereas, the claim is made against the Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27-Q- 8554 and has rightly dismissed the claim petition and he supported the impugned judgment.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:30561 MFA No. 5694 of 2013
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.
8. It is the specific case of the petitioner that there was an accident on 16.12.2009 at about 3.30 p.m involving TVS scooty and a motorcycle. According to the petitioner, Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-27-Q-8554 is the offending vehicle. In support of his claim, he has produced 13 documents to the investigation. Among them, Ex.P-5 is the statement of the petitioner given in the hospital between 2.30 to 3.00 p.m., on 17.12.2009, wherein he has stated that the offending vehicle as Pulsar bike bearing No.KA-27-Q-8564. Accordingly, FIR was registered against the rider of the said motorcycle.
9. Ex.P-3 is the charge sheet which points out that one Jakeer Husain Medleri was the rider of the said bike and it is pertinent to note that in the charge sheet, the -7- NC: 2024:KHC:30561 MFA No. 5694 of 2013 registration number of the motorcycle is mentioned as KA-27-Q-8564. Ex.P-4- Mahazar and also the statement of one Jagadish, who is the rider of the TVS scooty points out that the registration number of the motorcycle is KA-27-Q-8554. In the mahazar, the description of the motorcycle is not explained but only the description is mentioned as TVS scooty. The statement of the rider of the TVS scooty as per Ex.P-5 clearly shows that the description of the motorcycle as pulsar bike. The pulsar bike is a different make and model and a Hero Honda is also a different make and model, they cannot be identical motorcycles. Ex.P-7-MVI report points out that the make of the motorcycle is Hero Honda Glamour.
PW-3 is the Investigating Officer, who explains the investigation conducted at the time of filing of the charge sheet. He offers an explanation in the witness box that by over sight he has filed the charge sheet against the motorcycle bearing No.KA-27-Q-8564 instead of KA-27-Q-8554.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:30561 MFA No. 5694 of 2013
10. In order to accept such an explanation, he has to give proper explanation but in the course of cross examination it is elicited that he has not filed any request to the court for change of registration number of the motorcycle after filing of the charge sheet. In the charge sheet, the accident was committed by the pulsar bike, whereas, the charge sheet is filed against the Hero Honda motorcycle. The Investigating Officer has committed an error but the truth remained unsolved till the matter is taken up for trial before the tribunal. Hence, the petitioner though suffered fracture, he is entitled to claim compensation but he has made a wrong claim against the Hero Honda motorcycle instead of Pulsar bike.
11. I have carefully perused the impugned judgment. The tribunal has taken all these aspects into consideration and came to the conclusion that Hero Honda Glamour motorcycle has not caused the accident and the petitioner has to go against the Pulsar bike. I do not find any error or -9- NC: 2024:KHC:30561 MFA No. 5694 of 2013 illegality in the finding recorded by the tribunal. Appeal is devoid of the merits. In the result, the following:-
ORDER Appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7