Shrishail S/O Arjun Haranal vs Dhareppa S/O Bhirappa Uppar
2022 Latest Caselaw 7367 Kant

                                  1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    KALABURAGI BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2022

                            PRESENT

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

                               AND

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH

     MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.200267/2017 (MV)

Between:

Shrishail S/o Arjun Haranal
Age: 31 Years, Occ: Agriculture
By his next friend (wife)
Kasturi W/o Shrishail Haranal
Age: 26 Years, Occ: Household
R/o Todalbagi, Tq. Jamkhandi
Dist. Bagalkot
                                                   ...Appellant
(By Sri Sanganagouda V. Biradar, Advocate)

And:

1.     Dhareppa S/o Bhirappa Uppar
       Age: 41 Years, Occ: Business
       R/o Krishna Nagar, Ward No.30
       Near Havelli Galli, Vijayapur - 586 101

2.     The Branch Manager
       Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
       1st Floor, Bidari Complex
       S.S. Front Road, Vijayapur - 586 101
                                                 ...Respondents
(Sri Biradar Viranagouda, Advocate for R1;
Sri S.S. Aspalli, Advocate for R2)
                                 2

      This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 praying to allow the appeal by setting aside
the impugned judgment and award dated 13.12.2016 passed
by the learned II Additional District Judge and MACT-III,
Vijayapur in MVC No.143/2016 and pass reasonable award
and remand the matter to the learned Tribunal for a fresh trial
providing opportunity to lead the further evidence of appellant.

    This MFA is coming on for Hearing this day, SREENIVAS
HARISH KUMAR J., delivered the following:

                         JUDGMENT

      The    appellant    was       the     claimant        in    MVC

No.143/2015         on       the          file        of         MACT-

III, Vijayapur. According to the appellant, he sustained

grievous injuries as a result of accident that took place on

28.06.2014 at about 03.00 p.m., when a motorcycle

bearing registration No.KA-28/EE-5920 dashed him while

he was walking down the road near KEB office on

Savalagi-Todalbagi road. In connection with this accident,

the appellant approached the Tribunal claiming

compensation and the Tribunal by its judgment and

award dated 13.012.2016 dismissed the claim petition

doubting very happening of the accident.

2. We have heard Sri Sanganagouda V. Biradar,

learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.S. Aspalli,

learned counsel for respondent No.2. Learned counsel

for respondent No.1 is absent.

3. The argument of Sri Sanganagouda V. Biradar,

learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has

recorded wrong findings. When the appellant was

hospitalized on 28.06.2014, the history was clearly given as a

road traffic accident and this is clearly noted in Ex.P.315, the

discharge summary. The Tribunal has ignored Ex.P.315 to

give a finding that probably the claimant could have colluded

with police for chargesheeting the rider of the motorcycle with

a view for claiming compensation. P.W.3 was the eyewitness

to the accident and he gave the history before the doctor. As

he does not know Marati language, probably, what he

actually told the doctor about the accident might not have

been understood properly by the doctor, and thus, the history

was wrongly recorded. His further submission is that when

the police held investigation and laid chargesheet against the

rider of the motorcycle, the Tribunal ought not to have come

to the conclusion that the accident had not taken place at all.

In this view, the Tribunal has committed an error in

dismissing the claim petition, and therefore, the appeal

deserves to be allowed and remanded to the Tribunal for

deciding the claim petition on merits.

4. Sri S.S. Aspalli, learned counsel for respondent

No.2 argues that though the accident was said to have taken

place on 28.06.2014, FIR was not registered for about six

days. As an after thought, coming to know that the

motorcycle was insured, the claimant might have taken a

decision to create a story of accident caused by the rider of

the motorcycle. Referring to Paragraph No.15 of the judgment

of the Tribunal, learned counsel, Sri S.S.Aspalli argues that

the spot panchanama was conducted on 04.07.2014 and at

that time, the police did not seize the motorcycle though it

was very much available at the spot, instead the vehicle was

seized on 02.08.2014. This itself shows the connivance

between the police and the claimant and this has been rightly

observed by the Tribunal. This is a false case of accident and

the appellant is not entitled to claim any compensation.

Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

5. We have considered the points of argument and

also perused the records. According to the appellant, he

sustained injuries due to road traffic accident said to have

taken place on 28.06.2014. There is no dispute that

immediately after the accident, FIR was not registered, it was

registered six days later. However, the appellant was taken to

hospital on 28.06.2014 and if really it was a road traffic

accident, the hospital authority would have sent MLC to the

police Station for registration of FIR. Ex.P.315 is a discharge

summary. A clear note is made in the discharge summary

that it was not for MLC purpose. Moreover, the history given

before the doctor was that the injured i.e., the appellant fell

down from a motorcycle. If really accident had taken place in

the manner narrated by the appellant, nothing prevented the

attendant of the appellant in the hospital from disclosing the

fact that the appellant sustained injuries on account of

accident caused by the rider of the motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-28/EE-5920. Mere filing of chargesheet

does not mean that the Tribunal has to accept it as it is. The

Tribunal can assess the chargesheet. As the Tribunal has

observed, spot panchanama was conducted on 04.07.2014

and it shows that the vehicle was very much lying at the spot.

Even though the accident had taken place on 28.06.2014, at

the time conducting panchanama, the police did not seize the

motorcycle, rather they chose to seize the vehicle on

02.08.2018. The reason for not seizing the vehicle on

04.07.2014 is not forthcoming. This is the reason noted by

the Tribunal for disbelieving the chargesheet. In our opinion,

the Tribunal has come to right conclusion to disbelieve the

version put forth by the appellant regarding accident. The

collusion between the police and the appellant for the sake of

claiming compensation cannot be ruled out. Therefore, we do

not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and award.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE RSP