Karnataka High Court
Ashfaq vs R K Khasim on 29 June, 2022
Bench: Anant Ramanath Hegde
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.4304 OF 2014(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
ASHFAQ
S/O CHABU SAB
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/O NEAR MOSQUE
HOSANAGARA ROAD
RIPPONPETE
HOSANAGARA TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT 562101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ABDUL ANSAR FOR SRI. ABUBACKER SHAFI,
ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. R.K. KHASIM
S/O R.K. MAHAMOOD SAB
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/O NEAR MOSQUE,
HOSANAGAR ROAD,
RIPPONPET,
HOSANAGAR TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT 562 101.
2. YUSUF R.M.
S/O. MOHIDDIN SAB
2
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O CHOWDESHWARI BEEDI
THIRTHAHALLI ROAD,
RIPPONPET,
HOSANAGAR TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT 562101.
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.,LTD.,
3RD CROSS, NEHRU ROAD,
SHIMOGA 562101. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.R.RAVISHANKAR FOR SRI. K. SURYANARAYANA
RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 SERVED)
----
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
10-08-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.113/2008 BY THE
PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT AT SAGAR,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the
appellant and learned Advocate appearing for the 3rd
respondent- Insurer. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are served
and unrepresented.
2. The judgment and award dismissing the claim
petition dated 10-08-2012 passed in M.V.C.No.113/2008
by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court and Member,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sagar, has given a cause
of action to the claimant to file this appeal.
3. It is the contention of the claimant/appellant that
on 16-5-2007 at about 5.30 p.m. he was under the Lorry
to remove the wooden piece kept in front of the tyre. It is
further alleged that the driver without giving any signal
has moved the lorry, as such, the lorry ran over the left
hand of the petitioner and petitioner sustained injury to
the index finger. It is further stated that he was taken to
Mc.Gann Hospital, Shimoga, for treatment and then to
Manipal hospital. On this premise, petitioner filed a petition
claiming compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- from the owner as
well as the insurer of the truck.
4. The owner as well as the insurer of the vehicle
contested the petition and disputed the accident.
5. The claimant examined himself to substantiate
his case as PW1 and also examined the Doctor as PW2.
Insurer examined Dr. Vivek as RW1, Sri. D. Sharavan, an
independent investigator as RW2 and Sri. G.V. Ganesh,
PSI as RW3.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant/
appellant would contend that the police after
investigation have filed a chargesheet against the driver of
the truck, as such, the occurrence of accident is
established and the Tribunal is not justified in dismissing
the claim petition.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
Insurer would contend that Ex.P10 is the Wound Certificate
issued pursuant to the statement given by the claimant
himself. The said certificate reveals that claimant sustained
injury on account of stone falling on his hand. It is also the
case of the Insurer that Ex.P14, the certificate issued by
the Doctor from Manipal Hospital where the claimant has
taken treatment, also reveals that the injuries are on
account of stone falling on the hand of the claimant. It is
also to be noticed that the complaint is filed three days
after the date of the incident. The explanation provided in
the complaint by the claimant is that, the owner has
assured him to pay the compensation and after he turned
back from his assurance he has given the complaint after
three days.
8. The Tribunal has analysed the evidence placed on
record. The statement given by the complainant prior to
lodging of the complaint before the Doctor is to be taken
as the statement revealing the true facts of the incident
and also looking to the nature of injuries sustained by the
claimant, it is extremely difficult to believe that if the tyre
of the truck runs over the palm of the claimant only index
finger will be injured. It is noticed that only index finger is
injured and rest of the portion of the palm is not at all
affected.
9. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view
that view taken by the Tribunal and the reasons assigned
by the Tribunal for dismissing the petition are just and
proper and there is no scope for any interference.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
tsn*
