Karnataka High Court
Satish Shankar Mangasule vs Dinkar Appasaheb Magadum on 1 June, 2022
Bench: P.Krishna Bhat
-1-
MFA No. 24348 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24348 OF 2010 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SATISH SHANKAR MANGASULE,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O.LOKUR, TQ:ATHANI,
DIST:BELGAUM
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANJAY S KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DINKAR APPASAHEB MAGADUM
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O.NARWAD, TQ:MIRAJ,
DIST:SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA STATE
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
Digitally signed
CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM
by JAGADISH T
R ...RESPONDENTS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD
(BY SRI. S. S. KOLIWAD, ADV., FOR R2;
Date: 2022.06.03
11:19:37 +0530 R1- NOTICE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE M. V.
ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.09.2009 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.2548/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE
FAST TRACK COURT, ATHANI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SECTION 166 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.
-2-
MFA No. 24348 of 2010
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The claimant is the appellant. He is aggrieved by the
judgment and award dated 23.09.2009 in MVC No.
2548/2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track
Court, Athani (for short "the Tribunal") by which the claim
petition was dismissed.
2. Brief facts are to the effect that on 20.04.2007
while claimant and his friend Suresh Kumbar were
proceeding towards the land of the claimant by walk on
Athani-Kagawad road at about 9.00 a.m., the offending
motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-10/AD-1058 with
its rider driving it in a high speed and rash and negligent
manner dashed against the claimant resulting in fracture
of his right wrist. His claim petition was contested by both
the respondents before the learned Tribunal by filing their
separate written statements.
MFA No. 24348 of 2010
3. During trial, claimant examined himself as PW1
and he examined a Medical Expert as PW2. Exs.P1 to P8
were marked. Respondents did not examine any witnesses
but Exs.R1 to R3 were marked. After hearing the learned
counsel on both sides and perusing the records, learned
Tribunal rejected the claim petition disbelieving the case of
the claimant.
4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant
strenuously contends that the learned Tribunal was in
error in rejecting the claim petition only on the ground of
delay in lodging complaint and for the said purpose, he
placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Ravi v. Badrinarayan and others1. He also
submits that the documents produced viz., Ex.P1-Private
Complaint, Ex.P6-Wound Certificate and Ex.P13-Disability
Certificate clearly show that the accident as projected by
the claimant-appellant had in fact occurred and therefore,
(2011) 4 SCC 693
MFA No. 24348 of 2010
the appeal is required to be allowed and the matter
remanded to the learned Tribunal for fresh consideration.
5. Learned Counsel Sri. S. S. Koliwad appearing
for the Insurance Company, per contra, submits that on a
detailed appreciation of the materials produced, learned
Tribunal has come to the correct conclusion that the case
of he claimant was false and therefore, the claim petition
was rejected and such a finding of the learned Tribunal is
not liable to be interfered with.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made on both sides and I have carefully
perused the materials.
7. The claimant-appellant contends that while he
was proceeding by walk on the road on 20.04.2007 at
about 9.00 a.m. along with one Suresh Kumbar, the
offending motorcycle driven by its rider came in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against him resulting in
fracture of his right wrist. There is no dispute about the
MFA No. 24348 of 2010
fact that no police complaint was lodged within a
reasonable time and in fact, for the first time a private
complaint came to be lodged on 04.07.2007. Even though
claimant has produced Ex.P6-wound certificate said to
have been issued by one Anil S Chandrapathan of Miraj,
according to which the claimant-appellant was admitted to
the said hospital on 26.04.2007, the said doctor has not
been examined before the learned Tribunal. Even in the
history recorded in Ex.P6-Wound Certificate, it is only
vaguely stated that he suffered injury to the right wrist
due to trauma by motorcycle handle when he was walking
on the side of the road on 20.04.2007. The accident
admittedly as per the case of the claimant- appellant had
taken place at 9.00 a.m. on that day. In spite of the same,
the registration number of the motorcycle has not been
furnished even in the information given by him after six
days of the accident allegedly before the said doctor Sri.
Anil S Chandrapathan of Miraj. Further, the injury suffered
even according to the claimant was a fracture of base of
MFA No. 24348 of 2010
right thumb, which is seaphoid bone. It is difficult to
assume that such injury would have disabled the claimant
from lodging the complaint within a reasonable time.
Further, as per the case of the claimant one Suresh
Kumbar was with him at the time of the accident. Claimant
has not chosen to examine him as a witness and no
reason is given for his non-examination. Taking into
consideration the above aspects, the learned Tribunal has
disbelieved the case of the claimant in regard to the
occurrence of the accident and accordingly, proceeded to
reject the claim petition and since the said finding is based
on appreciation of the evidence, no fault can be found with
the same. On a careful appreciation of the evidence, I am
in full agreement with the assessment of the evidence
made by the learned Tribunal and the conclusion drawn
therefrom and therefore, there is no merit in this appeal
and hence, the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
MFA No. 24348 of 2010
In view of disposal of the matter, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive
for consideration and are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
YAN
