Sri Ningegowda vs Mohankumar D
2021 Latest Caselaw 5472 Kant

                            1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 4 T H DAY OF DECEMBER,2021

                        PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MR.J USTICE P.N.DESAI

     MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3155/2015 (MV)

BETWEEN:
SRI. NINGEGOWDA,
S/O DODDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT BALLENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT - 573 201.
                                             ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.J.ANANDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1.     MOHANKUMAR D.,
       S/O DEVEGOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
       R/AT GAVENAHALLI VILLAGE,
       KASABA HOBLI,
       HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT - 573 201.

2.     MANAGER,
       UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       GANDHI BAZAR CIRCLE,
       B.M.ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
    R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.09.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.1719/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                               2


                        JUDGMENT

The appellant has preferred the above appeal

challenging the judgment and award passed by the

Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter in

short called as 'MACT'), Hassan dated 29.09.2014 in

M.V.C.No.171/2013, wherein, claim petition field by the

appellant under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1989 (in

short 'M.V. Act'), came to be dismissed.

2. The appellant filed the claim petition before the

Tribunal contending that, on 27.05.2013 at about 10.30

a.m., when the appellant and others were travelling in a

Mahindra Maxi Cab bearing Registration No.KA-13-5261 on

B.M.Road, N.H.48 near Shanthigrama High School, at that

time, driver of TATA AC Vehicle bearing Registration

No.KA-13-A-8492 driven in a rash and negligent manner

and dashed against the Maxi Cab vehicle and caused

grievous injuries to appellant's left leg, head, left hand and

other parts of the body. Immediately, appellant was taken

to S.C.Hospital, Hassan, wherein he took treatment as

inpatient for a period of seven days and spent amount.

Hence, he filed the claim petition for loss and injury

suffered by him.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 entered appearance

and filed written statement. They have denied the

contention of the appellant and stated that appellant is not

entitled for any relief and the petition is not maintainable.

They have denied any injuries caused to the appellant.

Respondent No.2 stated that the insurance policy was in

force but the liability was subject to terms and conditions

of the policy.

4. Tribunal based on that, framed the issues.

Thereafter, appellant got examined himself as P.W.1 and

got marked 6 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6.

Respondents have not led any evidence. Tribunal after

hearing the arguments dismissed the petition.

5. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant

and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

7. The only ground urged by the appellant's

counsel is that Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence.

Though it is established that the appellant has sustained

injuries in a road traffic accident on 27.05.2013, the

Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the petition. The Police

have not recorded statement of the appellant due to

oversight. In the wound certificate timing of inpatient was

mentioned as 8.30 a.m. but for outpatient it was

mentioned as 9.45 a.m. Therefore, finding of the Tribunal

is not correct. The appellant has sustained three injuries

and he was inpatient for seven days and incurred

Rs.15,000/- and hence prays to set aside the impugned

judgment and award the compensation.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2

supported the judgment of the Tribunal.

9. I have carefully perused the judgment and the

records of the Tribunal both oral and documentary

evidence.

10. P.W.1 has filed his examination chief affidavit

which is nothing but reiteration of the petition averments.

In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not

lodged any separate complaint about accident. He has

denied the suggestion that he has not sustained any

injuries in the complaint. The appellant has produced six

documents. Ex.P.1 is the FIR which shows that accident

occurred on 27.05.2013 at about 10.30 a.m. Ex.P.2 is the

complaint and Ex.P.3 is the chargesheet. The said

chargesheet shows the case against the driver of the said

Maxi Cab for the offences punishable under Sections 279,

337 IPC and Section 187 of IPC Motor Vehicle Act and it is

stated that while driving the said vehicle in a rash and

negligent manner, he caused injuries to witness Nos.1 to

7.

11. The name of this appellant is not found in the

chargesheet either as witness or as an injured. I have

carefully perused Ex.P.4, wound certificate, which shows

that appellant was firstly examined by the doctor on

03.06.2013 at 9.45 a.m. and he came to the hospital for

being sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on

27.05.2013 at 8.30 a.m. which does not tally with the time

of the accident in this case. Further, if at all appellant has

sustained injury and taken treatment as an inpatient for

seven days, there is difference in timings on records.

When other witnesses were taken to hospital and they got

treated, why this appellant kept quiet till 03.06.2013 is not

forthcoming. He has not produced any document to show

that he had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident

which occurred on 27.05.2013 at 10.30 a.m. So, Ex.P.3 is

of no use to the appellant which is dated more than a week

after the said accident he approached the doctor with a

different timing. Either in the FIR or in the chargesheet,

there is no whisper about appellant sustaining any injuries

in the said accident.

12. Tribunal in its judgment has considered both

oral and documentary evidence and came to the conclusion

that the appellant might have sustained injuries on

27.05.2013 at 8.30 a.m. it may be with some other vehicle

and not in this accident which occurred at 10.30 a.m. The

material discrepancy in the timings in the wound certificate

and the medical records, that the appellant was admitted

to hospital and took treatment for seven days, is not

corroborated with each other. The said contention of the

appellant was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. Even

appellant has not examined any doctor, who has treated or

issued wound certificate. He has not produced any case

sheet or medical documents. Therefore, simply stating

that he has taken treatment and spent huge money on

treatment, without producing any records will not help the

appellant in any way. Therefore, when the appellant has

failed to prove that he sustained injuries in a road traffic

accident involving the impugned vehicle on that day and

when he fails to prove that he sustained injuries as stated

by him and took treatment in the hospital, the Tribunal has

rightly come to the conclusion that respondents are not

liable to pay any compensation. Accordingly, Tribunal has

rightly dismissed the petition. Tribunal has properly

appreciated both oral and documentary evidence in

appropriate manner. Judgment of the Tribunal cannot be

said either erroneous, illegal or perverse. Hence, I find no

ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.

Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal filed by the appellant being devoid of

merits is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the appeal is

dismissed.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

pgg