Karnataka High Court
Vithoba S/O Ishwar Arundekar vs Eknath Ganapathi Chopadekar on 16 June, 2022
Bench: P.Krishna Bhat
-1-
MFA No. 24252 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
MFA NO. 24252 OF 2010 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
VITHOBA S/O ISHWAR ARUNDEKAR
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: FISHING BUSINESSR/O
GABITKENI, TAL: ANKOLANOW RESIDING AT
ALVEVADAKODIBAG, KARWAR
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. J S SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. EKNATH GANAPATHI CHOPADEKAR
AGE: 48 YEARS, OWNER OF THE MOTOR
CYCLEBEARING NO.KA-30/1783, R/O DEVBAG,
SHADASHIVGAD,KARWAR, U.K.DISTRICT
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
BRANCH OFFICE AT: KARWARKITTUR CHAMBERS
MAIN ROADKARWAR-581301
...RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T
(BY SRI.S.K. KAYAKMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
R
Location: HIGH
(R1-SERVED)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD
Date: THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF THE M.V.ACT,
2022.06.22
15:00:37 +0530
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.07.2010
PASSED IN MVC NO.118/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDL.
M.A.C.T. KARWAR, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.
166 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
MFA No. 24252 of 2010
JUDGMENT
This appeal is at the instance of the claimant calling
in question the correctness of the judgment and award
dated 1.7.2010 in MVC No.118/2008 by the learned II
Addl. MACT, Karwar (for short, 'MACT').
2. Brief facts are that while on 29.4.2007 the
claimant was walking towards his house near Ravalanath
Temple, Gabitkeni, Ankola, motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-30/783 driven by its rider in a rash and negligent
manner came and dashed against him resulting in serious
injuries.
3. The claim petition was resisted by the
respondents by filing their respective statement of
objections.
4. During the trial, the claimant examined himself
as PW1 and examined a Medical Practitioner as PW2 and
he also examined the Investigating Officer, who had
conducted investigation in criminal case as PW3 and Ex.P1
to P17 were marked. The respondents examined one of
MFA No. 24252 of 2010
the Officials of Insurance Company as RW1 and Ex.R1 to
R3 were marked.
5. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides
and perusing the records, the learned MACT dismissed the
claim petition being of the view that the claimant had
failed to prove his case that he had suffered injuries in a
motor vehicle accident involving the offending motorcycle.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/claimant contended before me that the learned
MACT has committed a serious error in not appreciating
the evidence on record and has come to a wrong
conclusion that the claimant had failed to prove the
accident in question. He submitted that the claimant
examined himself as PW1 and he also examined the IO
who had conducted the investigation in the criminal case
and therefore, mere delay in lodging the complaint could
not have been a ground for the learned MACT to disbelieve
the accident as alleged by the claimant. He therefore,
submitted that the appeal is required to be allowed and
MFA No. 24252 of 2010
the claimant is entitled to receive compensation as
determined by the learned MACT.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Insurance Company contended that the
private complaint was lodged after a delay of more than
seven months of the accident. She further submitted that
even as per the case of the claimant, he was discharged
from Manipal Hospital on 24.08.2007 and subsequent
admission to the hospital was for minor treatment. Even
such last admission to Manipal Hospital was on 4.10.2007
and he was discharged on 5.10.2007 itself. She further
contended that the evidence of PW3-IO shows that he had
merely recorded the statement of persons whose names
were suggested by the claimant himself and there was
collusion between the 1st respondent-owner of the
offending vehicle and claimant. She submits that the
learned MACT was right in rejecting the claim petition and
therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and same is
liable to be rejected.
MFA No. 24252 of 2010
8. I have given my careful consideration to the
submissions made on both sides and also I have perused
the records.
9. The case of the claimant is that on 29.4.2007,
while he was walking on the road near a Temple in Ankola
town, offending motorcycle driven by its rider in a rash
and negligent manner dashed against him and caused
injuries. There is no dispute about the fact that the case
was not reported to the Police till after private complaint
was lodged by the claimant before the learned JMFC on
7.12.2007 i.e. more than seven months after the accident
in question. The reason given by the claimant during trial
was that he was receiving treatment and therefore, he
could not lodge the complaint and the said explanation is
difficult to be accepted as reasonable one. Besides,
medical record produced at Ex.P8 shows that he was
discharged from Manipal Hospital on 24.08.2007 after
being hospitalized for about 15 days. Even Ex.P9 shows
that thereafter he was admitted to Manipal Hospital for a
MFA No. 24252 of 2010
short spell between 4.10.2007 and 5.10.2007, even
thereafter, complaint was not lodged immediately. Even
during his evidence, PW1 has taken inconsistent stand by
initially stating during cross-examination that he had
informed the police immediately after the accident and
police had visited the spot soon thereafter. Further in his
cross-examination, he had stated that soon after the
accident he had become unconscious, and if that were to
be so, it would not have been possible for him to notice
the registration number of the offending motorcycle.
10. In view of the above state of records, it is
impossible to disagree with the finding recorded by the
learned MACT that the clamant has failed to prove the
accident as alleged by him. Accordingly, I do not find any
merit in this appeal and therefore, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
