Sri Muniyappa vs Sri Raju
2022 Latest Caselaw 12329 Kant

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                          BEFORE

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

                 M.F.A.NO.2974/2013 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SRI MUNIYAPPA
S/O. SRI JOGI CHIKKAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT KODIPURA VILLAGE,
KODHIHALLI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK-562 117
DIST: RAMANAGARA
                                                ... APPELLANT

          (BY SRI RAMACHANDRA R. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SRI RAJU
       S/O. KRISHNAPPA,
       KODIHALLI VILLAGE,
       KANAKAPURA TALUK-562 117
       RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.

2.     BHARATHI AXA GENERAL
       INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       PRIDE QUADRA,
       NO.30, 2ND FLOOR, HEBBAL ROAD,
       BENGALURU-560 024
       BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
                                             ... RESPONDENTS

       (BY SRI A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
                VIDE ORDER DATED 31.05.2018,
             NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
                                2



     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.02.2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.1244/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, AND XXVII ACMM, MACT,
BENGALURU,    DISMISSING    THE  CLAIM   PETITION   FOR
COMPENSATION.

     THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned

counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

award dated 02.02.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.1244/2010 on the

file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, (SCCH-11)

('the Tribunal' for short) questioning the dismissal of the claim

petition.

3. The parties are referred to as per their original

rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the

convenience of the Court.

4. The claimant in the claim petition has contended that

the accident occurred on 10.10.2009 at 12.00 noon and he was

proceeding with his friend as pedestrian at Marasandra in front

of Gudigowda's house, at that time, the auto rickshaw bearing

registration No.KA-42-4710 came with high speed in a rash and

negligent manner and caused accident. As a result, he has

sustained injuries and he was taken to hospital and treated as an

inpatient.

5. In order to substantiate his claim, he examined

himself as P.W.1 and also examined the Doctor as P.W.2 and got

marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P29. On the other hand,

the respondents have not led any evidence.

6. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record, particularly the

documents of Ex.P2-complaint, Ex.P5-wound certificate and

Ex.P6-discharge summary, wherein the discrepancy is found,

comes to the conclusion that the documents are created, in

order to make wrongful gain and dismissed the claim petition.

7. In the appeal, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant would vehemently contend that, immediately after the

accident on 10.10.2009, he was taken to Kodihalli Government

Hospital and later, he was shifted to Sumathi Hospital and

complaint was lodged on 13.10.2009. The Tribunal committed

an error in coming to the conclusion that there is a delay in

lodging the complaint and the documents are created to make

wrongful gain and the very approach of the Tribunal is

erroneous. It is also contended that the Tribunal has not

appreciated the documents at Exs.P2, P3 and P4 and the finding

given by the Tribunal is imaginary and the respondents have not

disputed those documents. Hence, it requires interference.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2

would vehemently contend that the Tribunal has discussed in tail

in Para No.9 with regard to the accident and also the date of

complaint which is given after three days and in the documents

at Exs.P5 and P6 i.e., wound certificate and discharge summary,

the admission date is mentioned as 15.10.2009 and the

document at Ex.P24, clinical notes given by the Doctor is also

clear that he took treatment only on 15.10.2009. In order to

substantiate the fact that he took treatment immediately after

the accident, no document is placed before the Court.

9. Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of the material available on record, as per the claimant,

the accident occurred on 10.10.2009 and there is a delay of 3

days in lodging the complaint and the complaint was given on

13.10.2009. According to the claimant, immediately after the

accident, he was taken to Kodihalli Government Hospital and no

document is produced for having taken treatment at Kodihalli

Government Hospital. Apart from that, it is his claim that,

immediately after the accident, he took first aid at Kodihalli

Government Hospital and thereafter shifted to Sumathi Hospital,

wherein he took treatment as an inpatient. But, the discharge

summary which is marked as Ex.P6 discloses that he took

treatment on 15.10.2009 after five days of the accident and

there is no documents in between the period from 10.10.2009 to

15.10.2009, however, in Ex.P5-wound certificate the date is

mentioned as 11.10.2009 and no records of Sumathi Hospital is

summoned and produced before the Court.

10. When such being the case, the Tribunal, in Para No.9

of the judgment has discussed in detail the discrepancy found

with regard to the accident and the treatment and rightly comes

to the conclusion that the claimant has not substantiated the

accident and he had sustained injuries in the accident and he

took treatment. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal to

reverse the findings of the Tribunal with regard to issue No.1.

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

following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST