Rahul Suresh Angadi vs P Ashok
2022 Latest Caselaw 1298 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                          BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

                MFA NO.11029/2010(MV)
                         C/W
                MFA NO.11028/2010(MV)

MFA NO.11029/2010:

BETWEEN:

RAHUL SURESH ANGADI
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
S/O SURESH ANGADI,
R/AT NO. 361, 8TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS,
RBI LAYOUT, J P NAGAR,
BANGALORE- 560 078
                                           ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     P ASHOK
       MAJOR,
       S/O PANDARI
       R/AT NO. O8, 6TH MAIN, 2ND PHASE,
       5TH BLOCK, BSK III STAGE,
       KATHRIGUPPA,
       BANGALORE- 560 085

2.     UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD
       MANANDI COURT,
       27TH CROSS,3RD BLOCK,
       JAYANAGAR,
       BANGALORE-11
       REP BY ITS MANAGER
                                      ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
                              2




     R1-SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.07.2010 PASSED IN
MVC NO.4656/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL
SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

MFA NO.11028/2010:

BETWEEN:

MANOHAR JAYANT JOSHI
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
S/O JALYANT C JOSHI
R/AT NO. 361, 8TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS,
RBI LAYOUT, J P NAGAR, 7TH PHASE
BANGALORE- 560 078
                                            ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.R. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     P ASHOK
       MAJOR,
       S/O PANDARI
       R/AT NO. O8, 6TH MAIN, 2ND PHASE,
       5TH BLOCK, BSK III STAGE,
       KATHRIGUPPA,
       BANGALORE- 560 085

2.     UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD
       MANANDI COURT,
       27TH CROSS,3RD BLOCK, NO. 346/1710
       JAYANAGAR,
       BANGALORE-11
       REP BY ITS MANAGER
                                         ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
   R1-SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.07.2010 PASSED IN
                                     3




MVC NO.4657/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL
SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

     THESE MFA'S COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/ PHYSICAL HEARING,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                             JUDGMENT

These appeals are at the instance of claimant calling in

question correctness of the judgment and award dated

31.07.2010 passed in MVC No.4666 & 4667/2007 by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-17),

wherein claim petitions were dismissed by the learned

Tribunal.

2. The claim petitions were filed on the allegation

that on 30.03.2007 at about 1.00 a.m. claimant - Rahul

Suresh Angadi was the rider and claimant-Manohar Jayant

Joshi was the pillion rider in respect of motorcycle bearing

registration No. KA-22-U-660 and when they reached near

Lalbagh West Gate on R.V.Road, a motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-05-ET-9342 being driven in a rash and

negligent manner came from behind and dashed against the

claimants' motorcycle due to which they fell on the median

and suffered serious injuries. Before the learned Claims

Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained exparte and respondent

No.2 - insurance company filed a detailed written statement

denying the material averments in the claim petition.

3. During the trial, two claimants examined

themselves as PW1 and PW2 and a doctor was examined as

PW3. Exs.P-1 to P-21 were marked on behalf of claimants.

Investigating officer, who filed charge sheet was examined as

RW1 and Ex.R-1 was marked on behalf of respondent.

4. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides

and perusing the records, learned Tribunal dismissed the

claim petitions.

5. It is urged on behalf of appellants that learned

Tribunal has committed an error in appreciating the evidence

and proceeded to dismiss the claim petitions on account of

which miscarriage of justice has taken place. It is therefore

urged that appeals are required to be allowed and matters be

remanded to the learned Tribunal for proceeding in

accordance with law.

6. Learned counsel for the insurance company, per

contra, contended that motorcycle insured with insurance

company has been falsely implicated in this case and as a

matter of fact complaint itself was filed after 45 days of the

accident and since learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the

claim petitions on appreciation of evidence, there is no ground

to set aside the same and appeals are liable to be dismissed.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival

contentions and I have carefully perused the records.

8. The rider claimant has lodged the complaint on

15.05.2007 alleging that on 30.03.2007 while he was riding

the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22-U-660 with the

other claimant Manohar Jayant Joshi being pillion rider, near

Lalbagh West Gate on RV Road, the offending motor vehicle

came from behind and dashed against the claimants'

motorcycle, due to which two claimants and motorcycle fell on

the median resulting in serious injuries to claimants.

9. Learned Tribunal has extensively discussed the

evidence produced before it and it has come to the conclusion

that delay in lodging the complaint has not been properly

explained. The reason given was that both the claimants

were undergoing treatment in the hospital and therefore they

could not file the police complaint at the appropriate time.

However, discharge summaries produced clearly shows that

claimants were discharged on 15.04.2007 and on 04.04.2007

respectively from the hospital and inspite of the same, they

did not lodge the complaint immediately. From the narration

of facts in the complaint lodged by the claimant - Rahul

Suresh Angadi itself it is evident that accident had taken place

in wee hours on 30.03.2007 and according to further facts

stated in the complaint, the offending motorcycle had dashed

against their motorcycle from behind. It is therefore quite

possible that they were not in a position to either notice which

vehicle had hit them from behind or that on account of losing

control they themselves had dashed to the road median

resulting in injuries.

10. Insofar as charge sheet is concerned, evidence of

RW1, who is the Investigating Officer who filed the same,

shows that according to him even till 15.05.2007 both the

claimants were in ICU, which is falsified by the discharge

summaries wherein it is clearly showed that they were

discharged much earlier namely, on 15.04.2007 and

04.04.2007 itself. In that view of the matter, learned Tribunal

has correctly come to the conclusion that claimants have

failed to establish the fact that accident as alleged by the

claimants involving the insured motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-05-ET-9342 had taken place. Accordingly,

finding of learned Tribunal being based on the evidence, no

good grounds are made out to interfere with the same and

therefore, these appeals lack in merits and liable to be

dismissed.

Hence, the following:

JUDGMENT

(1) Appeals are dismissed.

(2) Registry to transmit the records to the

learned Tribunal forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DR