Prabhu S/O Siddappa Hangagi vs Sharanabasappa Doddabasappa ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1833 Kant

                                        MFA 23568/2013

                        -1-


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                       BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

             M.F.A.No.23568/2013 (MV)

BETWEEN:

     SHRI PRABHU S/O SIDDAPPA HANJAGI
     AGE: 34 YEARS,
     OCC: BUSINESS and AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. C/O. R.K.BHASME,
     H.NO.65, RAMNAGAR,
     IN FRONT OF GANAPAT TEMPLE,
     BELGAUM.                       .. APPELLANT

(By Sri. H R LATUR AND
 SRI.SHREEVATSA SURESH HEGDE, ADV.)

AND:

1.     SHRI SHARANABASAPPA DODDABASAPPA KANAVI
       AGE: 38 YEARS,
       OCC: SERVICE,
       R/O. HOSPETH ONI,
       SAUNDATTI, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
       DIST: BELGAUM

2.   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
     NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
     LIMITED,
     1ST FLOOR, PRABHU BUILDING,
     RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM.
                                  .. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.RAJESH B.RAJNAL, ADV. FOR R-2;
R1-SERVED)
                                                   MFA 23568/2013

                                -2-


     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.06.2011
PASSED IN MVC No.2210/2007 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER AMACT, BELGAUM,
DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 166
OF MV ACT.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

The claimant has filed the instant appeal

challenging the judgment and award dated 27th June

2011 passed in M.V.C.No.2210/2007 by the III

Additional Senior Civil Judge and Addl.M.A.C.T.,

Belgaum (for brevity, 'the Tribunal').

2. Though the appeal is listed for admission, with

the consent of learned counsel appearing on both sides,

the same is taken up for final disposal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this

appeal are referred to by their rankings assigned to

them before the Tribunal.

4. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant

for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are:

MFA 23568/2013

The claimant had filed a claim petition under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the

Tribunal in M.V.C.No.2210/2007 claiming compensation

in respect of the injuries sustained by him in the alleged

road traffic accident that had taken place on

17.12.2006.

5. It is the case of the claimant that on

17.12.2006 he along with one Basavaraj Shankarayya

Kodlimath and Gadigeppa Mudakappa Prabhunavar was

returning from the house of one Chidambar Bhajantri

near Chidambareshwar Temple and when they were

walking on the left side of the road towards Saundatti

Bus Stand, the offending motor cycle bearing

registration No.KA-24/H-8256, which was driven in a

rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against

the claimant and caused the accident and in the said

accident, the claimant had suffered grievous injuries

and he was admitted to M.M.Hooli Hospital, Saundatti

wherein he was treated for his injuries. The Tribunal

vide the impugned judgment and award has dismissed MFA 23568/2013

the claim petition on the ground that the claimant had

failed to prove that the injuries were caused in the

alleged road traffic accident said to have taken place on

17.12.2006. It is under these circumstances, the

claimant is before this court in this appeal.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant

submits that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the

claim petition solely on the ground that there is a delay

in lodging the Police complaint. He submits that even if

there is no Police complaint lodged, the Tribunal can

entertain the claim petition if the claimant is able to

prove that the injuries were caused in the road traffic

accident. He submits that the hospital records have

been completely overlooked by the Tribunal, which has

resulted in passing of the erroneous impugned

judgment and award and accordingly, prays to allow the

appeal.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

insurer submits that the Tribunal was justified in

dismissing the claim petition as the material on record MFA 23568/2013

would go to show that the claimant had not suffered the

injuries as contended by him before the Tribunal. He

submits that the offending motor cycle has been

wrongly implicated in the case after a delay of more

than four months, only in order to enable the claimant

to make a false claim before the Tribunal. He

accordingly prays to dismiss the appeal.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the

arguments advanced on both sides and also perused the

material available on record.

9. It is the case of the claimant that on

17.12.2006 when he was returning from the house of

one Chidambar Bhajantri along with two others, the

offending motor cycle dashed against him and caused

the injuries. The material on record would go to show

that the claimant was admitted in a private hospital at

Saundatti viz., Hooli Surgical and Fracture Clinic from

18.12.2006 to 20.12.2006. Ex.P6 is the medical

certificate issued by the said private hospital on

20.12.2006. The claimant has also produced the x-rays MFA 23568/2013

and other medical bills, which would go to show that the

claimant was treated in Hooli Surgical and Fracture

Clinic in respect of the injuries suffered by him. Ex.P26

is the Medico-Legal certificate issued by the Medical

Officer of Hooli Surgical and Fracture Clinic. In the said

certificate, it has been mentioned that the claimant had

sustained the injuries as mentioned in the said

certificate in a vehicular accident that occurred on

17.12.2006 at about 11.30 a.m. The date of admission

and date of discharge of the claimant is also mentioned

in the said certificate.

10. It is the specific case of the claimant that after

the accident, he had not lodged the Police complaint

immediately because the owner of the motor bike had

assured to take care of his medical expenses.

Subsequently, since the owner refused to pay the

hospital expenses, the claimant forwarded a complaint

to the jurisdictional Police on 22.01.2007. The copy of

the postal receipt in this regard was produced by the

claimant as Ex.P1. Thereafterwards, on 17.04.2007 he MFA 23568/2013

approached the Superintendent of Police and lodged a

complaint and subsequently, a FIR was registered by

the jurisdictional Police against the rider of the offending

motor cycle for the offence punishable under Sections

279 and 338 of IPC. The Police after investigation have

filed a charge sheet as against the rider of the offending

vehicle.

11. The owner of the motor cycle, who has filed

his written statement before the Tribunal, has admitted

the involvement of the offending bike in the accident in

question. The Tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the

claim petition solely for the reason that there has been

delay caused in lodging the Police complaint in respect

of the alleged accident and the said delay was not

properly explained by the claimant. The Tribunal has

also taken note of the fact that the other two persons,

who were proceeding along with the claimant as on the

date of the accident, were not examined and therefore

the accident in question was no proved by the claimant.

MFA 23568/2013

12. It is a settled principle of law that filing of

Police complaint with regard to the alleged accident is

not a pre-requisite for the purpose of maintaining a

claim petition claiming compensation in respect of the

injuries suffered in a road traffic accident. The claimant

can independently establish the accident and also the

injuries sustained by him in the accident and in the said

event, the Tribunal is required to consider the claim

petition on its merits. In the case on hand, though

there is a delay caused in filing the Police complaint,

which has not been properly explained by the claimant,

as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the

claimant, there are medical records available, which

would go to show that the claimant was admitted in a

hospital immediately after the alleged accident on

17.12.2006 and he was treated for the injuries suffered.

Ex.P26, the medico-legal certificate has not been taken

into consideration by the Tribunal and there is no

discussion with regard to the said document by the

Tribunal. In addition to Ex.P26, there are other medical

records in respect of the treatment taken by the MFA 23568/2013

claimant in the private hospital viz., Hooli Surgical and

Fracture Clinic, Saundatti wherein he was admitted for a

period of two days. Therefore, in my considered view,

the Tribunal has erred in not at all taking into

consideration the medical records that were produced

by the claimant so as to prove that he had suffered

injuries in the road traffic accident that had allegedly

taken place on 17.12.2006.

13. Under the circumstances, the impugned

judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to

be set aside and the mater is required to be remitted to

the Tribunal for fresh disposal of the claim petition in

accordance with law. Accordingly, I pass the following

order:

The Miscellaneous first appeal is allowed. The

judgment and award dated 27th June 2011 passed in

M.V.C.No.2210/2007 by the III Additional Senior Civil

Judge and Addl.M.A.C.T., Belgaum, is set aside and the

matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal of MFA 23568/2013

- 10 -

the claim petition in accordance with law as

expeditiously as possible.

Having regard to the fact that the claim petition is

of the year 2007, it is needless to state that the Tribunal

shall make all endeavour to expeditiously dispose of the

claim petition.

The parties are directed to appear before the

Tribunal on 2nd March 2022 without awaiting further

notice from the Tribunal.

The contentions of both parties on the merits of

the case are left open and the parties are at liberty to

lead additional evidence, if any, in support of their case.

The Registry is directed to transmit the original

records to the Tribunal forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KNM/-