Smt Narasamma vs Sri Manjunatha
2022 Latest Caselaw 13089 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

               M.F.A.NO.8085/2014 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SMT. NARASAMMA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
W/O. PUTTAPPA,
R/AT NO.40, 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN,
HOSAKEREHALLI, VEERABADRANAGARA,
NAYANDAHALLI, MYSURU ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 085.                          ... APPELLANT

            (BY SRI VISHWANATHA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.     SRI MANJUNATHA
       D.NO.43, 4TH MAIN,
       BRAHMAPUTRA NAIDU ROAD,
       BRUNDAVANANAGAR,
       BENGALURU-560 019.

2.     M/S. THE ORIENTAL INSRUANCE
       COMPANY LIMITED
       NO.70/5, SUVARNA TOWERS,
       1ST FLOOR, NEAR VIJAYANAGAR,
       B.D.A. COMPLEX,
       GOVINDARAJANAGAR, VIJAYANAGAR,
       BENGALURU-560 040.                ... RESPONDENTS

        (BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
                VIDE ORDER DATED 05.02.2021,
              NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
                                   2




      THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST       THE    JUDGMENT    AND    AWARD      DATE     05.09.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.6347/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 20TH
ADDITIONAL          SMALL   CAUSES      JUDGE,     MEMBER,        MACT,
BENGALURU,          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.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award

dated 05.09.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.6347/2012 on the file of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, XX Additional Small Causes

Judge, Bengaluru, (SCCH-22), ('the Tribunal' for short)

questioning the dismissal of the claim petition.

2. The parties are referred to as per their original

rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the

convenience of the Court.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

claimant is that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing

the claim petition without looking into the material available on

record. The counsel also would submit that the Tribunal

committed an error in dismissing the claim petition even though

the claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and produced the

documents as Exs.P1 to P10 and though the respondent No.2

denied the occurrence of the accident and involvement of auto

rickshaw, not placed any material before the Court. It is also

contended that the observation made by the Tribunal that only

to support the claimant, the respondent No.1 was placed exparte

is erroneous. The counsel also would submit that, when the

injured was taken to the hospital, he was given treatment and in

terms of Ex.P10-outpatient slip, it is mentioned as history of RTA

on 24.03.2012 and inspite of it, the Tribunal committed an error

in dismissing the claim petition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent No.2-Insurance Company would submit that the

Tribunal discussed in detail considering the claim petition and

there was a delay of 60 days in lodging the complaint. The

Tribunal, in Para No.9 of the judgment, considering the material

available on record, comes to the conclusion that, absolutely

there are no reasons and explanation for delay in lodging the

complaint and Ex.P10 is only an outpatient slip, wherein it is

mentioned as history of RTA on 24.03.2012 and with regard to

the involvement of auto rickshaw in the accident is concerned,

no document is placed by the claimant. When there is no such

material on record, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim

petition and it does not require any interference of this Court.

5. Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of the material available on record, it is the claim of the

claimant that he was proceeding in the auto rickshaw and

accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of

the auto rickshaw. No doubt, the claimant-P.W.1 reiterates the

pleadings of the claim petition, no document is placed before the

Court as to what prevented her from lodging the complaint

immediately after the accident. Though it is contended that she

was inpatient for a period of 15 days and complaint was lodged

after 60 days, in between the date of discharge and date of

complaint, no document is placed before the Court. The

Tribunal, taken note of the material available on record in Para

No.9 and discussed in detail that the complaint was filed after 60

days and it is only mentioned as RTA on 24.03.2012 and

nowhere, it is mentioned that auto rickshaw has involved in the

accident and also, nowhere it is mentioned that she fell down

from the auto rickshaw. When such being the material on

record, the respondent No.2-Insurance Company also examined

one witness as R.W.1 and no doubt, he admits that due to

admission in the hospital, she has lodged the complaint after 60

days of the accident, he volunteers that the said reason is not

justified and there was no explanation for the delay in lodging

the complaint even after discharge.

6. Having taken note of the material available on

record, the Tribunal discussed in detail with regard to the nature

of injuries i.e., right clavicle fracture and also lacerated wound

over the scalp, the Tribunal also taken note of the fact that

though the claimant was inpatient for a period of 15 days and

after discharge also, she has not given any complaint and there

was a delay of 45 days in lodging the complaint even after

discharge also. Apart from that, the Tribunal, while rejecting the

claim petition comes to the conclusion that MLC is not produced

before the Court and the same is also not summoned by the

claimant with regard to the intimation given immediately after

the accident and rightly comes to the conclusion that, in all

probabilities, it can be held that the petitioner in collusion with

all concerned has filed a false case, in order to get the

compensation. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the

Tribunal and apart from that, the vehicle which was implicated in

the accident was not having permit to ply the vehicle near

Magadi-Bengaluru road and permit is only to ply the vehicle

within 25 kms. radius of Bengaluru and the other circumstances

also supports the case of the respondent No.2-Insurance

Company. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal to come

to an other conclusion.

7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST