Karnataka High Court
Venkatesh S/O Late Annappa Bovi vs Manjegowda S/O Singrigowda on 26 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:47023
MFA No. 4176 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA NO. 4176 OF 2013 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
VENKATESH
S/O LATE ANNAPPA BOVI
AGED 20 YEARS
R/O YELIYURU VILLAGE
DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DIST - 573 129 ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.B.M.MOHAN KUMAR, ADV.)
AND:
1. MANJEGOWDA
S/O SINGRIGOWDA
YELIYURU VILLAGE
DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201
Digitally signed by MALA K 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
N
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CKN CHAMBERS
Location: HIGH COURT OF 1ST FLOOR, 143/141 1ST MAIN ROAD
KARNATAKA
SHESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 005
REP. BY ITS MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.
VENKATESHWARA BUILDING
B.M.ROAD, HASSAN CITY - 573 201
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADV. FOR R2;
R1 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 3.10.2012
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:47023
MFA No. 4176 of 2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.400/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT,
CHANNARAYAPATNA, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 27.11.2023 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the petitioner has challenged
the judgment and award dated 03.10.2012 in
M.V.C.No.400/2011 passed by the Fast Track Court
at Channarayapatna ('the Tribunal' for short)
dismissing the claim petition.
2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the
parties shall be referred to as per their status before
the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are, on 27.01.2010 at
about 5.15 p.m., father of petitioner by name
Annappa Bovi, the deceased, while walking on the
left side of B.M.Road in front of KEB Office,
Channarayapatna town, was hit by Marti Omni
NC: 2023:KHC:47023
bearing No.KA-05/N-5771 injuring him. He was
treated at Government Hospital, Channarayapatna
and District S.C.Hospital, Hassan. Inspite of
treatment, he succumbed to death on 29.01.2010.
The petitioner approached the Tribunal seeking grant
of compensation of Rs.15 lakhs. Claim was opposed
by the Insurance Company on the ground that there
was no nexus between the injuries sustained by the
deceased and the vehicle involved in the accident.
The Tribunal after taking the evidence held that,
under alcohol intoxication the deceased might have
involved with an unknown vehicle and doubted the
involvement of the Omini car in question and
dismissed the claim. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner has filed this appeal on various grounds.
4. Heard the arguments of Sri.B.M.Mohan
Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri.B.C.Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for the
Insurance Company.
NC: 2023:KHC:47023
5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the accident was witnessed by PW-
3/Manjegowda, who carried the injured to
Channarayapatna Hospital and also to District
Hospital, Hassan. Since the owner and driver of the
Maruti Omni promised that they will bear the
treatment expenses, as they belong to same village,
compliant was not filed. Hence, there is a delay in
filing the complaint. The Tribunal erroneously held
that an unknown vehicle is involved in the accident,
the deceased was under alcohol intoxication, the
vehicle in question was not involved in the accident,
in dismissing the claim and he sought for
assessment of compensation.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has contended that it is a case of 'hit and
run'. The deceased might have sustained injury by
an unknown vehicle. When the deceased was
brought to the hospital, his identity was not known
NC: 2023:KHC:47023
to anybody and none of the persons belonging to
deceased had accompanied him either to
Government Hospital, Channarayapatna or at District
S.C.Hospital, Hassan. Even when the death
occurred, nobody was present, as he was an
unknown patient treated free of cost; only after the
death, in connivance with the persons belonging to
same village, the vehicle in question has been fixed
taking the help of Police, prosecution papers are
prepared for the sake of compensation. The Tribunal
has considered all the materials on record in
dismissing the claim and he supported the impugned
judgment.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments advanced on both sides and also perused
the materials on record.
8. It is the specific case of the petitioner that
his father was met with an accident hit by Maruti
Omni bearing No.KA-05/N-5771 in front of KEB
NC: 2023:KHC:47023
Office of Channarayapatna town. PW-3 Nanjegowda
has shifted the injured to the Government hospital,
Channarayapatna, from there shifted to District S.C.
Hospital, Hassan. It is also their case that since
owner and driver of the Maruti Omni assured him
that they will bear the treatment expenses and
requested not to file any complaint, as they belong
to same village, no complaint was filed to the police.
As they did not come forward to bear the expenses,
after the death of deceased, the matter was reported
through the complaint filed by the brother of the
deceased. All the materials placed before the court
is in the same line.
9. The prosecution papers pertain to filing of
the FIR, investigation and charge sheet including
spot mahazar, inquest, hospital intimation and the
case sheet pertaining to the hospital are made
available as per Exs.P1 to P13. On perusal of
Ex.P1/complaint, it is pertinent to note that the
NC: 2023:KHC:47023
allegation of accident is caused by the Omini car
bearing No.KA-05/N-6771. The first leg of mistake is
that the FIR is filed against the car bearing No.KA-
05/N-6771 instead of KA-05/N-5771.
10. The charge sheet has been filed against the
driver of the car bearing No.KA-05/N-5771. It is
pertinent to note that complaint was filed on
30.01.2010 at 9.30 a.m. whereas the death of the
deceased was at 11 a.m. on 29.01.2010, i.e., one
day after the death of deceased. Ex.P13 is the
extract of the accident register pertains to
S.C.Hospital, Hassan. The recitals did point out that
an unknown patient was brought in 108 ambulance
on 27.01.2010. Ex.P14/case sheet shows that the
injured was unable to speak as he was fully
intoxicated with alcohol. The medical records did
show that 'suspected RTA'. From the medical
records, it is clear that from day one of the accident
till the death of the deceased, his identity was not
NC: 2023:KHC:47023
known to anybody and is an "unknown" patient and
for this reason free treatment was provided to him.
11. When the treatment including
transportation is free, where is the question of
petitioner incurring treatment expenses is 2nd leg of
mistake for the sake of belated FIR. It is interesting
to note the evidence relied upon by the petitioner.
PW-3/Manjegowda is said to be the eye witness to
the accident. He files an affidavit explaining that he
had seen the accident physically and that it is he and
the driver of the Omini car that carried the deceased
to the Government Hospital, Channarayapatna. He
further points out that as per the advice of the
doctors of Channarayapatna Hospital, he carried the
injured to S.C.Hospital, Hassan in an ambulance. If
really PW-3 was an eyewitness, there should have
been some material in the hospital to show that PW-
3 and the driver of the Omini car have brought the
injured to the either Government Hospital,
NC: 2023:KHC:47023
Channarayapatna or to S.C.Hospital, Hassan.
Contrary to this, medical records point out that an
unknown patient was brought to the Government
Hospital, Channarayapatna, so also to S.C.Hospital,
Hassan, which explains neither PW-3 nor the driver
of the Omini car have accompanied the injured.
12. Further, it is interesting to note that till
death of the deceased was declared on 29.01.2010
at 11 a.m., he is an unknown patient, only on
30.01.2010 all of a sudden, PW-2/Manja Bovi for the
first time came out saying that he is brother of
injured, he came to know about the accident through
PW-3 and set the law into motion at 9.30 a.m. on
30.01.2010. Interestingly the driver and the owner
of the car, complainant, petitioner, PW-3 and the
deceased all hail from the same village. As per the
hospital records, the deceased was an unknown
patient from the day one of the accident till his
death. Neither the evidence of the petitioner nor the
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:47023
so-called eyewitness PW-3 is inspiring the confidence
of the court, it is dangerous to accept PW-3 as an
eyewitness, if it is accepted, it amounts to total
miscarriage of justice.
13. It is an unfortunate case where the
deceased under the influence of acohol, in front of
KEB office, Channarayapatna, met with an accident
hit by an unknown vehicle. The place of accident is
a crowded place in Channarayapatna town and some
persons shifted him in an autorickshaw to the
hospital. Since the identity of the injured was
unknown, nobody accompanied to the hospital.
Autorickshaw driver dropped him to the hospital, and
the hospital staff by using 108 ambulance shifted
him to S.C.Hospital, Hassan. Hence, the identity of
the deceased nor death of the deceased was known
to anybody. Circumstances explains that it is a clear
case of 'hit and run' but the fellow villagers on
30.01.2010 made a complaint in consultation with
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:47023
police and set the law into motion against their own
vehicle for the sake of compensation.
14. On careful perusal of the impugned
judgment, the Tribunal has appreciated the entire
materials on record and recorded cogent reasons
that the evidence of PW-3 cannot be relied upon,
nobody had accompanied the injured to the
government hospital, Channarayapatna or
S.C.Hospital, Hassan; till the death of the deceased,
he was an unknown patient; a day after the death of
deceased, all of a sudden, the fellow villagers
become so active, they brought a car belonging to
other village, set the law into motion and presented
the claim. Death of the deceased cannot be a
bonanza for his family members. For the reason of
the deceased died with intoxication, hit by an
unknown vehicle cannot be a windfall for the
petitioner in connivance with the fellow villagers and
Police. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly recorded its
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:47023
finding that the alleged accident is tailored by using
their own vehicle and it cannot be relied upon to
hold that the deceased had sustained injuries due to
accident caused by car bearing No.KA-05/N-5771.
Hence, the order of dismissal is based on proper
evidence and it does not call for interference. The
appeal is devoid of merits, in the result the
following:
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KNM
CT:HS
