C.Annayappa vs Mallikarjuna Aradhya
2022 Latest Caselaw 12373 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                         BEFORE

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

                M.F.A.NO.1739/2013 (MV)

BETWEEN:

C.ANNAYAPPA
S/O. LATE A. CHIKKANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/O. BADACHOWDANAHALLI
PURAVARA HOBLI
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.                         ... APPELLANT

          (BY SRI PATIL D. KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     MALLIKARJUNA ARADHYA
       S/O. GANGADHARAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
       R/O. BADACHOWDANAHALLI
       PURAVARA HOBLI
       MADHUGIRI TALUK
       TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

2.     ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
       INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       PRAJAPRAGATHI BUILDING
       II FLOOR, B.H.ROAD
       TUMAKURU
       BY ITS MANAGER

       SERVICE ADDRESS (NEW)
       ICICI BRANCH OFFICE
       LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
                                  2



      COMPANY LIMITED
      NO.83, SVR COMPLEX
      HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU.              ... RESPONDENTS

     (BY SRI K.HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
              SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.11.2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.114/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MADHUGIRI, 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 respondents.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

award dated 20.11.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.114/2009 on the

file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT XIII at

Madhugiri ('the Tribunal' for short).

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 factual matrix of the case of the claimant before

the Tribunal is that he met with an accident on 31.08.2009 at

about 10.45 p.m. near Gowribidanur Gate Circle, Madhugiri Town

due to rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw. As a

result, he had sustained injuries and he took treatment in the

hospital.

5. In order to substantiate his case, 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 P97. On the other hand,

the respondents examined one witness as R.W.1 and got marked

the documents as Exs.R1 to R4.

6. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the claim

petition in coming to the conclusion that, immediately after the

accident, the injured was taken to Hospital, wherein history is

given that he has fallen from the bike. The document at Ex.R2

and also the wound certificate which is marked as Ex.P6 issued

by M.S. Ramaiah Hospital is very clear that he has fallen from

bike and taking note of these two documents, the Tribunal

comes to the conclusion that the claimant has not proved the

accident involving the auto rickshaw.

7. It is not the case of the claimant that on account of

rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw, when he hit, he

had fallen from the bike. But, his case is that he was standing

near the bus stop and auto rickshaw came and dashed against

him and the evidence available on record not correlates with

each other. Apart from that, there is a delay of 13 days in

lodging the complaint and the same is also taken note by the

Tribunal. When such being the case, I do not find any merit in

the appeal to reverse the finding of the Tribunal. Hence, the

appeal is liable to be dismissed.

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

following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST