Karnataka High Court

Manjunatha vs The Manager on 14 October, 2022

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                              1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                            BEFORE

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

                M.F.A.NO.5742 OF 2013 (MV-I)
BETWEEN

MANJUNATHA
S/O NANJUDASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
HIRIBILTHI(VILLAGE)
SHRAVANABELAGOLA(HOBLI)
CHANNARAYAPATNA(TALUK)
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201

PRESENTLY R/AT 2ND CROSS,
CHAMPAKA NAGARA,
SAKLESHAPUR,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573201
                                                ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI: GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE-THROUGH PH)

AND

1 . THE MANAGER
    NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
    CHANDAN COMPLEX,
    HARSHAMAHAL ROAD,
    HASSAN-573 201
2 . A CHANDRA
    S/O JAVEREGOWDA,
    AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
    ANKAPURA (VILLAGE)AT POST,
    KATTAYA (HOBLI)
    HASSAN DISTRICT-573201

                                             ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: K. POORNABODHA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1-THROUGH-VC;
    R2-SERVED)
                                  2



     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.3.2013 PASSED IN
MVC NO.635/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT,
SAKALESHPUR,    DISMISSING    THE   CLAIM    PETITION   FOR
COMPENSATION

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

                         JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

award dated 13.03.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.635/2012 on the

file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT., Sakaleshpura ('the

Tribunal' for short).

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 factual matrix of the case is that on 16.01.2012

at about 6.00 p.m., the claimant was walking on the left side of

the road near Biranahally Kere, Opposite Ghandhi Clinic in Police

Colony of Hassan Town. At that time, the rider of the motor bike

drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed

against him. As a result of which, he has sustained injuries over

his right arm and other parts of the body. Immediately he was

shifted to the CSI Hospital, Hassan wherein he has taken

treatment. In order to substantiate his contention, he has

examined himself as PW-1 and also examined the doctor as

PW-2 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On

the other hand, the respondents have not led any evidence.

4. The Tribunal after considering oral and documentary

evidence answered Issue No.1 in negative and came to a

conclusion that the documents produced clearly reveals that the

petitioner has not sustained alleged injuries in the motor vehicle

accident and the Tribunal has also observed that it is the fixed

case and if really the motor bike hit to the person from the

backside, there is a chance of multiple abrasion injury caused to

the claimant over his face and other parts of the body. The

Tribunal also observed that the evidence of PW-2 itself suspected

regarding claimant sustaining alleged injury in the said accident

and in Ex.P8-case sheet, it is not mentioned the said case as

Medico Legal Case and not given intimation to the police.

Hence, the present appeal is filed by the claimant.

5. The learned counsel for the claimant would

vehemently contend that the Tribunal has committed an error

and not even considered the Ex.P6 and Ex.P8 wherein it is

categorically mentioned that the injured was taken to the

hospital by his relatives and within a span of one and half hour

of the accident, the injured was taken to the hospital. Further

the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the Ex.P8 case sheet

disclose that the hand writing of only one person and hence,

disbelieved the case of the claimant. There was a delay of three

days in lodging the complaint and the injured has also given the

reason for non filing of complaint that immediately after the

accident that the motorcyclist who hit him assured him that he

will meet the medical expenses but he did not meet the same

and hence there was a delay in lodging the complaint and the

same has not been considered by the Tribunal.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1

submits that there is no dispute with regard to delay of three

days in filing the complaint. The Tribunal while rejecting the

application has given reasons and also taken note of the

evidence of PW-2. Hence, the judgment and award passed by

the Tribunal does not require any interference.

7. Having heard the respective counsels and also on

perusal of the appeal memo, the document Ex.P8 case sheet

disclose that the injured was taken to the hospital on the date of

the accident i.e., on 16.01.2012 within a span of one and half

hour and the accident has occurred at 6.00 p.m.. and Ex-P6

disclose that the injured was taken to the hospital by his

relatives and the complaint was given after three days of the

accident. In the complaint itself, he has specifically stated that

the rider of the motor vehicle requested him not to give any

complaint as he is going to meet the medical expenses. But he

did not meet the expenses, as a result, he has given the

complaint. Police have also investigated the matter and in terms

of Ex.P3-Charge sheet, Ex.P4-Spot Mahazar was conducted and

vehicle was also seized and IMV report is marked at Ex.P7 and

having taken note of Ex.P6-wound certificate, I have already

pointed out that within one and half hour, the injured was taken

to the hospital on the very same day and also x-ray was taken,

wherein it is clear that the claimant has suffered one grievous

injury and injury Nos.1 and 3 are simple in nature. Nodoubt on

perusal of case sheet, injured was admitted to the hospital on

the same day i.e., on 16.01.2012 and he has taken treatment till

23.01.2012. The Tribunal has observed that the case sheet is in

the handwriting of only one person. When the treatment was

given in the same hospital, nodoubt the handwriting will be of

only one person and the same cannot be a ground to come to a

conclusion that there was no such accident at all. It is also

important to note that in the case sheet, it is not mentioned as

MLC. Non mentioning of MLC is not a ground for the Tribunal to

come to a conclusion that no such accident has occurred. Even

the respondents have not led any evidence before the Tribunal

disputing the accident, evidence of PW-2 regarding non

registration of MLC and also no intimation given to the police.

When the injured himself has explained the reasons for

immediately non filing of the complaint, the Tribunal ought not

have come to such conclusion in the absence of contra evidence

and hence, the matter requires to be remanded for fresh

consideration and the very approach of the Tribunal with regard

to no accident has occurred requires to be set aside.

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

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 13.03.2013 passed in

M.V.C.No.635/2012 by the Tribunal is set aside.

(iii) The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to consider the matter for afresh with regard to quantum of compensation.


       (iv)    This matter is of the year 2012 and also one
               decade   elapsed.      Hence,     the   parties   are
               directed to appear before the Tribunal on

18.11.2022 without expecting any notice from the Tribunal.

(v) The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the respective counsel and parties are directed to assists the Tribunal for disposal of the matter within the stipulated time.