V. Govindappa vs The Manager
2023 Latest Caselaw 945 Kant

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                          BEFORE

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

                M.F.A.NO.433/2014 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

V. GOVINDAPPA
S/O P.H VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NO.42, 7TH MAIN ROAD,
NANDINI LAYOUT, 4TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560 096.                           ... APPELLANT

           (BY SRI MAHADEVA SWAMY P., ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.     THE MANAGER
       SHRIRAM GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
       NP-S-5, 2ND FLOOR,
       MONARCH CHAMBERS,
       INFANTRY ROAD,
       SHIVAJINAGAR,
       BENGALURU-01

2.     NINGAPPA N. KADEMANI
       S/O. LATE NILAPPA,
       KADEMANI VILLAGE,
       CHIKKAHANDIGOL TALUK,
       GADAG DISTRICT
       KARNATAKA STATE-20                ... RESPONDENTS

     (BY SRI H.N.KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
               R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
                                 2



     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.07.2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.5218/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL    SENIOR    CIVIL  JUDGE,   MEMBER,   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.1-Insurance Company.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award

dated 20.07.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.5218/2012 on the file of

the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) ('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 of the claimant before

the Tribunal is that on 07.05.2012 at about 1.20 p.m., when the

petitioner was going by walk near Chandapur bridge on the right

of the service road, the driver of the car bearing registration

No.KA-25-N-3319 went in a high speed and dashed against the

petitioner. As a result, he had sustained injuries and filed the

claim petition before the Tribunal. On receipt of notice, the

respondent No.1-insurance company appeared and filed the

written statement denying the averments made in the claim

petition. It is contend that, though the accident has occurred

due to self-fall and his own negligence, the insured car was fixed

in the case after lapse of 12 days to make wrongful gain.

4. The claimant, in order to substantiate his case,

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

P.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P15. On the

other hand, the respondent No.1-insurance company examined

one witness as R.W.1 and did not mark any document.

5. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record, answered issue No.1 as

'negative', in coming to the conclusion that the claimant has not

proved the case that he had sustained injury in the accident

involving the vehicle in question. Hence, the present appeal is

filed before this Court.

6. The main contention of the learned counsel

appearing for the claimant is that the Tribunal committed an

error in dismissing the claim petition. It is contended that

accident has taken place on 07.05.2012 and the petitioner was

taken to Blossom Speciality Hospital on the same day and

appellant got admitted to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital on 21.05.2012,

wherein he took treatment from 21.05.2012 to 13.06.2012. The

Tribunal erroneously dismissed the claim petition on the ground

that MLC Register Extract is not produced and Ex.P4-wound

certificate do not support the case of the appellant. The Tribunal

has not properly examined the documents produced by the

claimant. The claimant not only examined himself as P.W.1 but,

also examined the Orthopedic Surgeon as P.W.2 and relied upon

the documents of FIR, Charge-sheet, mahazar, wound

certificate, IMV report and other documents for having taken

treatment at Blossom Speciality Hospital as well as Sanjay

Gandhi Hospital and inspite of these documents having been

produced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal committed an error in

dismissing the claim petition.

7. Having heard the respective counsel, it is not in

dispute that accident has occurred on 07.05.2012. No doubt,

the claimant relied upon the document of Ex.P7 i.e., the

treatment slip issued by Blossom Hospital, on perusal of Ex.P7,

history is mentioned as 'hit by four wheeler'. It is the contention

of the learned counsel for the appellant that he was treated as

outpatient and POP was applied and he was sent to house.

When he categorically says that he was hit by a four wheeler, he

was not admitted to the hospital on the said day and he also did

not lodge any complaint and complaint was lodged only on

19.05.2012 and the same is also an after thought and no

explanation on the part of the claimant as to what prevented him

from lodging the complaint.

8. It is also important to note that he went to Sanjay

Gandhi Hospital on 21.05.2012 but, P.W.1 says that he had

given the particulars of the accident and registration number of

the vehicle which caused the accident to Attibele Government

Hospital. But, no such material is placed before the Court and

the Tribunal also taken note of the fact that complaint was given

after 12 days, wherein also he has stated that vehicle involved in

the accident is Tata Sumo. He also admits that himself and his

wife lodged the complaint in the police station stating that

vehicle which caused the accident was like a Tata Sumo.

Further, he also admits that, even at Blossom Hospital, he has

informed the particulars of the accident and registration number

of the vehicle and the medical documents of Attibele

Government Hospital is not produced before the Court.

However, he relies upon the document at Ex.P7 of Blossom

Hospital and the same does not disclose the registration number

of the offending vehicle.

9. The insurance company also relied upon the

evidence of R.W.1 and contend that there is discrepancy in the

documents which have been relied upon by the claimant. It is

the case of the R.W.1 that, it is a case of self-fall because of his

own negligence and Ex.P4 discloses that he was brought to

hospital on 13.06.2012 at 11.00 a.m. but, it is also mentioned

that accident has occurred on 21.05.2012.

10. No doubt, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant would vehemently contend that immediately on the

date of the accident, he went to hospital and document at Ex.P7

discloses the same. When he has given the history that he was

hit by a four wheeler i.e., a car, what prevented him from

lodging the complaint is not forthcoming and in the document at

Ex.P7 also, it is mentioned that the appellant has sustained

compound fracture of tibia and fibula and hospital authorities

also have not given any complaint and the appellant has only

went to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital on 21.05.2012 and in between

the said date, no document is placed that he had taken

treatment from 07.05.2012 to 21.05.2012. Hence, the Tribunal,

taking note of the material available on record, comes to the

conclusion that both oral and documentary evidence placed on

record not inspires the confidence of the Court and MLC was also

on 13.06.2012. As per the complaint, the date of the accident is

mentioned as 07.05.2012 and the document at Ex.P4 also not

supports the case of the claimant and the Tribunal has given the

reasoning that there was a delay of 12 days in lodging the

complaint and the documents relied upon by the claimant not

supports the case of the claimant. Hence, I do not find any error

committed by the tribunal in not believing the case of the

claimant and there was not only delay in lodging the complaint

but also, there was discrepancy in the documents which were

relied upon by the claimant with regard to the accident and the

history given. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal to

reverse the findings of the Tribunal.

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

following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST