Karnataka High Court
R Narayana Murthy vs H.R.Gopinath on 16 November, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.6101/2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
R. NARAYANA MURTHY,
S/O LATE RANGASWAMY R,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RETD.SERICULTURE EMPLOYEE
AND PHOTOGRAPHER,
GUTTINAKERE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573103
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI DAYANAND S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. H.R.GOPINATH,
S/O RAMACHANDRAIAH,
AGE MAJOR,
R/O NO.24, 7TH CROSS,
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-78.
(OWNER CUM DRIVER OF HERO HONDA
SPLENDER MOTOR CYCLE BEARING
REG NO.KA-51/V-546).
2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
414, VEERA SAVERKAR MARG,
NEAR SIDDI VINAYAKA TEMPLE,
PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI-400025.
REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH OFFICE,
AT MYSORE AND ITS LOCATION AS HEREUNDER:
2
ICICI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MYTHRI ARCADE, NO.24,
NEAR SARASWATHI THEATRE,
SARASWATHIPURAM,
KANTHARAJ URS ROAD,
MYSORE-570001.
(POLICY NO.3005/10491345/10728/000
VALID FROM 16-10-2009 TO 15-10-2010).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S. LAKSHMINARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
R1 SERVED)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.4.2014 PASSED
IN MVC NO.850/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
JMFC, MACT, ARASIKERE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though this matter is listed for admission today, with the
consent of both the learned counsel it is taken up for final
disposal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and
award dated 29.04.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.850/2012, on the
file of the Senior Civil Judge, JMFC, MACT, Arasikere, ('the
Tribunal' for short).
4. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before
the Tribunal is that he met with an accident on 09.02.2010 and
immediately he was taken to J.C. Hospital Arsikere, and then he
was shifted to Mangala Hospital, Hassan wherein he took
treatment. It is the case of the claimant that when the
complaint was given to the police, the police did not received the
complaint and hence he was forced to file a private complaint.
Based on the private complaint, case has been registered. The
Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record dismissed the claim petition and while
dismissing the claim petition, in paragraph Nos.18 and 19
discussed with regard to period of inpatient and also filing of
private complaint after six months and also observed that when
the police have refused to receive the complaint, no complaint
was given to the higher authorities and in paragraph No.19 also
taken note of that it is a case of hit and run and history was
given as RTA hit and run near Ayyappa Swamy Temple at 9.50
p.m. Having considered the same and also delay in filing the
private complaint, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the
claimant has failed to prove that on 09.02.2010, the offending
vehicle was involved in the accident. The Tribunal considered
the material on record, particularly pleading of guilt and
observed that mere pleading of guilt is not sufficient to prove the
accident and dismissed the claim petition.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would
vehemently contend that there are eye-witnesses to the accident
and they were not examined before the Tribunal and going to
examine the eye-witnesses and hence the matter may be
remanded.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 brought to
the notice of this Court that, in detail discussion was made by
the Tribunal while rejecting the claim petition having considered
the material on record in paragraph Nos.17 to 19 and hence it
does not require interference of this Court.
7. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also
on perusal of the material available on record, the accident was
taken place on 09.02.2010, and immediately he was taken to
J.C. Hospital, Arsikere and then he was shifted to Mangala
Hospital, Hassan and he was an inpatient for the period from
10.02.2010 to 21.02.2010 and he was an inpatient for a period
of 12 days. The private complaint was given after six months
and in order to substantiate his claim that earlier also he had
given the complaint to the police and the police have not
received the complaint, no document is placed before the Court,
instead of relied upon Ex.P.9 copy of the complaint in PCR
No.6/2011 and the same is filed after six months of the accident.
When such being the case and when he was discharged from the
hospital after 12 days of the accident, no reason has been
assigned with regard to delay in lodging the complaint. Hence,
the Tribunal rightly comes to the conclusion that after thought
only the private complaint is filed. The Tribunal also taken note
of MLC register extract, wherein it is mentioned as RTA hit and
run and if really the vehicle was involved in the accident i.e., the
offending vehicle, would have given the complaint immediately
and the same is not done and also reason was assigned by the
Tribunal that after lapse of sufficient time only, private complaint
was filed and on the basis of the private complaint, the case was
registered and the rider of the vehicle admitted the guilt. Hence,
it is nothing but an attempt made to make wrongful gain.
Hence, I do not find any ground to reverse the finding of the
Tribunal.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
