Taramati And Ors vs Vithal And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 144 Kant

                           1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
               KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2023

                      PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

                         AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA


 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.200601/2018(MV)

Between:

1.   Taramati W/o Eknath Jhinje
     Age:38 Years, Occ: Household work

2.   Navanath S/o Eknath Jhinje
     Age: 17 Years, Occ: Student

3.   Somanath S/o Eknath Jhinje
     Age: 16 Years, Occ: Student

4.   Alinka D/o Eknath Jhinje
     Age: 13 Years, Occ: Student

     (Appellants No.2 to 4 are minors
     R/by Taramati Eknath Jhinje as M/G)

5.   Vishwanath S/o Keraba Jhinje
     Age: 78 Years, Occ: Nil

6.   Dropadibai W/o Vishwanath Jhinje
     Age: 68 Years, Occ: Household work
                               2

       All are R/o: Ter, Tq: Osmanabad
       Now residing at Jalanagar
       Vijaypur-586 103

                                                  ...Appellants

(By Sri Koujalagi Chandrakant Laxman, Advocate)

And:

1.     Vithal S/o Ramachandra Lengare
       Age: 48 Years, Occ: Owner of Car
       Bearing No.MH-13/AZ-6494
       At Post: Gopalpur, Tq: Phandrapur
       Dist: Solapur-413 001

2.     The Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd.,
       DB Plaza 3rd Floor, 47 Whites Road
       Chennai-600 002(Tamil Nadu State)

                                               ...Respondents

(Sri C.S.Kalaburgi, Advocate for R2;
 R1 is served)


       This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, praying to set aside the judgment and award
dated:21.12.2017 passed in MVC No.933/2014 on the file
of the III Additional District Judge and Member Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal No.IV Vijaypura at Vijaypura and
allow this appeal by granting the compensation amount of
Rs.36,00,000/-only as claimed by the appellants before
this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice and equity.
                              3

        This appeal coming on for final hearing, this day,
SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR J., delivered the following:

                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed against the judgment dated

21.12.2017 in MVC No.933/2014 on the file of Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Vijayapura.

2. We have heard Sri Koujalagi Chandrakant

Laxman, learned counsel for the appellants and

Sri C.S. Kalaburagi, learned counsel for respondent

No.2.

3. The appellants being the dependents of

one Eknath Jhinje preferred claim petition before the

Tribunal seeking compensation of `36,00,000/- with

interest @ 18% per annum in connection with death

of Eknath Jhinje in a motor vehicle accident that took

place on 19.02.2013 at 12 noon on Ter-Bukanwadi

road, 1.5 k.m. away from the village Ter. Initially,

FIR was registered as per Ex.P.1 to the effect that the

accident was caused by unknown person. Even in the

mahazar drawn as per Ex.P.3, the name of the driver

of the vehicle which caused the accident was not

mentioned. When the Tribunal recorded evidence, the

claimants examined one Sri Vishwanath Agatrao

Kolekar as P.W.2 as an eyewitness to the accident.

But the Tribunal did not believe the evidence of P.W.2

that he had seen a car bearing registration No.MH-

13/AZ-6494 dashing the motorcycle being ridden by

the deceased from behind. The finding of Tribunal in

this regard is that his evidence appears to be an after

thought. The Tribunal also observed that delay of

nine days in registration of FIR would amply make it

clear that the claimants might have fixed the vehicle

just for the sake of claiming compensation and

therefore for these reasons Tribunal decided to

dismiss the claim petition.

4. It is the argument of Sri Koujalagi

Chandrakant Laxman that the evidence of P.W.2

should not have been disbelieved by the Tribunal. He

was an eyewitness to the incident and his deposition

clearly discloses that he was riding his motorcycle and

the deceased was proceeding infront of him when the

accident occurred. This being the evidence of P.W.2,

his evidence should have been believed to come to

conclusion that the accident did occur and the

deceased met death in road traffic accident and

therefore the Tribunal ought to have computed the

compensation payable to the claimants. He argued

for allowing the appeal and remanding the case.

5. Sri C.S. Kalaburagi, learned counsel for

respondent No.2 submits that the Tribunal has come

to right conclusion to dismiss the claim petition. If

really P.W.2 was an eyewitness, nothing prevented

him from going to police station immediately after the

accident and giving information to the police about the

involvement of the car bearing registration No.MH-

13/AZ-6494. It is clearly mentioned that the accident

was caused by unknown person. P.W.2 has clearly

stated on the very same day that he did not go to the

police station.

6. We have considered the arguments and

also perused the entire evidence. The evidence of

P.W.2 is to be considered to decide whether accident

did take place or not. Though in the examination-in-

chief, he has stated that at the time when he was

riding his motorcycle, he saw a car bearing

registration No.MH-13/AZ-6494 hit the motorcycle

being ridden by the deceased, the manner in which he

has given answers in the cross-examination clearly

suggests that he was not an eyewitness. It is elicited

from him in the cross-examination that he went to the

hospital and informed claimant No.1 and one Sri

Prabhakar about the accident. Thereafter, FIR was

registered at the instance of said Prabhakar. If really

Prabhakar came to know from P.W.2 the manner in

which the accident took place and the registration of

the car which caused the accident, nothing prevented

him from disclosing the registration number of the car

while lodging FIR. Very conspicuously it is clearly

written in the FIR that the accident was caused by

unknown car. Vehicle number is also not mentioned

in the FIR. Therefore, the information first disclosed

before the police plays an important role. Thus seen it

may be clearly stated that probably, the car bearing

registration No.MH-13/AZ-6494 was fixed in the case

only for the purpose of claiming compensation. These

being the doubtful circumstances, we have to observe

here that the Tribunal has come to proper conclusion

to dismiss the claim petition. We do not find any

merit in this appeal. Therefore appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

BL