Karnataka High Court
Narasimhalu vs Ramesh B M on 24 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:42496
MFA No. 8036 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.JOSHI
M.F.A. NO. 8036 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
NARASIMHALU,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/O: KAMANAPALLI VILLAGE,
PALAMANERU TALUK,
CHITTUR DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(By SRI H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAMESH B.M,
S/O. MUNIVENKATAPPA
NO.126, OPP:KEB OFFICE,
BETHAMANGALA TOWN,
BANGARPET TALUK.
Digitally signed
by T S 2. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
NAGARATHNA
Location: High NEAR SNR HOSPITAL,
Court of BANGARPET CIRCLE,
Karnataka
KOLAR.REP. BY ITS MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI ANUP SEETHARAM RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI B.C SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.10.2017, PASSED IN MVC
NO.172/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE I-ADDITIONAL SENIOR
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:42496
MFA No. 8036 of 2019
CIVIL JUDGE AND A.C.J.M., KOLAR, DISMISSING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING AT
KALABURAGI, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the appellant/petitioner is directed
against the judgment and award dated 25.10.2017, passed
in MVC No.172/2014, by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge
and ACJM, Kolar, dismissing the claim petition for
compensation.
2. The brief facts are as below:
That on 23.01.2014 the petitioner and his brother's
son Varadaraju were proceeding to purchase the Tomato
pesticides at Bethamangala on a two wheeler bearing
Reg.No.AP.04-K-1474 and the said Varadaraju was driving
the said vehicle and the petitioner was the pillion rider.
After purchasing the pesticides, while they were returning
to their village at about 3 p.m., near a Tractor Mechanic
Shop on Bethamangala-V.Kota road, a tractor bearing
NC: 2023:KHC:42496
Reg.No.KA.08-T-3925 came from Tractor Mechanic Shop
side and the driver of the said tractor drove the same in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner's
motorcycle and as a result, the petitioner sustained
grievous injuries. He was shifted to Government hospital,
Bethamangala and thereafter, referred to SNR Govt
hospital, Kolar and thereafter, shifted to Amruth Accident
Trauma Care Centre, Kolar, wherein the petitioner was
admitted as an in-patient for about one month and he has
spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards the operation, medicines,
attendant, food, conveyance etc., and he had sustained the
injuries as described in the petition and undergone surgery
on 09.02.2014. The petitioner was working as an
agriculturist and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The
accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the tractor. Bethamangala Police
have registered case in Cr.No.73/2014 for the offences
punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC against
the driver of the tractor. The 1st respondent is the owner
and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the tractor and
NC: 2023:KHC:42496
hence, both are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation and prayed to allow the petition.
3. On issuance of notice by the Tribunal, the
respondent No.1 remained absent and he was placed ex-
parte. The respondent No.2 has appeared through its
counsel and filed statement of objection, inter-alia denying
the accident as alleged. However, insurance coverage to the
tractor as per policy is admitted. It has alleged that the
petitioner has made misrepresentation deliberately and
trying to take unfair advantage and playing fraud on the
Court and the case is fabrication and concoction to seek
compensation and denied the valid and effective driving
licence of the driver of the tractor as well and prayed to
dismiss the petition.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal
framed appropriate issues and petitioner was examined as
PW1 and three other witnesses were examined as PWs.2 to
4 and Exs.P1 to P14 were marked in evidence. The
NC: 2023:KHC:42496
respondent No.2 examined its official as RW1 and Exs. R1
and 2 were marked.
5. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal dismissed
the petition holding that the petitioner had failed to prove
that he had sustained the injuries in the accident involving
the tractor.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the
petitioner is before this Court in appeal.
7. On issuance of notice, respondent Nos. 1 and 2
have appeared through their counsels. The Tribunal records
have been secured.
8. The arguments by learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and respondents were heard.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/
petitioner contended that the delay in filing the complaint to
the extent of five days has been properly explained by the
petitioner and the records clearly show that the petitioner
NC: 2023:KHC:42496
was admitted to the Government Hospital on the date of the
accident i.e. on 23-1-2014. Thereafter, on 24-1-2014 he
had shifted to a private hospital. It is contended that the
Tribunal erred in holding that the involvement of the Tractor
in the alleged accident is doubtful and in view of the
overwhelming medical records, it should have held that the
accident had occurred involving the offending vehicle i.e.
tractor bearing Reg.No.KA.08-T-3925. He also contended
that there is permanent disability to the petitioner as per
the evidence of PW2 and the petitioner was inpatient for 15
days and as such, he being agriculturist had suffered
permanent disability. He has relied on the decision in the
case of Ravi Vs. Badarinarayan and others1.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.2- Insurance Company contended that there
is a delay of five days in filing the complaint and though a
lame excuse is shown that the owner of the tractor had
assured medical expenses would be paid, the other
2011 (4) SCC 693
NC: 2023:KHC:42496
evidence is not convincing. He points out that PWs- 3 and
4 say that the tractor was parked on the road, but the
petitioner contend that the tractor hit the motor cycle of the
petitioner. He contends that, the Wound Certificate issued
by the SNR Government Hospital show that the accident
was dated 27-1-2014 and it was given on the basis of a
report by a private hospital. Therefore, he contends that
there is no medical evidence which show that the petitioner
was immediately shifted to SNR Government Hospital,
Kolar. He points out that the Medico Legal Register Extract
would have played a vital role and no such acceptable
evidence is placed on record. He contend that the decision
in the case of Ravi Vs. Badarinarayan and others is not
applicable since the delay in filing the FIR is not the sole
ground for rejection of the claim petition.
11. A perusal of the testimony of PW1 would show
that he had reiterated his contention in the petition. He
contended that while he and his brother's son Varadaraju
were proceeding on motor cycle, the petitioner being the
NC: 2023:KHC:42496
pillion rider, the tractor came from the Tractor Mechanic
Shop in negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle.
He says that he was shifted to Government Hospital,
Bethamangala and after first aid, he was shifted to SNR
Government Hospital, Kolar. He says that he was shifted to
other hospital thereafter. In the cross-examination, he
admits that police had taken his statement while he was in
SNR hospital and it was about 5-6 days after the accident.
He says that one Dr. Vijaya Kumar had promised a
settlement, but he failed to secure the owner of the tractor.
12. PW3 Shafiulla, states that he had parked his
tractor in front of the mechanic shop and a two wheeler had
dashed to the said tractor wherein the rider and pillion rider
were injured. He states that he had paid fine of Rs.1700/-
at a Court at KGF. In the cross examination, it was elicited
that at the instance of the owner of the tractor, he had
pleaded guilty.
13. PW4 who happens to be the tractor mechanic say
that when he had gone for lunch there was an accident in
NC: 2023:KHC:42496
front of his Mechanic Shop and later the police had come
and had obtained his signature on Ex.P3. He says that he
do not know how the accident had happened.
14. A perusal of the FIR at Ex.P1 and the complaint at
Ex.P2 show that the case was registered at the instance of
Varadaraju, the rider of the motor cycle on 29-1-2014. The
endorsement shows that the statement was obtained by the
Bethamangala Police while the complainant was at SNR
Hospital. In the complaint, it is mentioned that the owner of
the tractor- Vijayakumar had shifted the injured to
Bethamangala hospital and then they were shifted to SNR
Government Hospital, Kolar in an ambulance. The
complaint also mention that Vijayakumar had initially
promised settlement, but later, he did not come forward
and therefore, complaint was filed.
15. The wound certificate at Ex.P7 shows that it was
issued on 19-3-2014 by SNR District Hospital, Kolar and it is
mentioned that the petitioner had showed the history as
assault/RTA said to have been caused on 27-1-2014. It was
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42496
further observed that "the above case has been treated in
private hospital. Xerox report has been submitted - shows
fracture based on private reports. The above injury is
grievous in nature." This mention in the Wound Certificate
issued by SNR District Hospital raises a doubt as to whether
it was caused in assault or RTA. Therefore, it was
incumbent upon the petitioner to produce the MLC Extract.
It is also relevant to note that if the MLC intimation was
issued to the police on the same day, definitely, it would
have been reflected elsewhere.
16. The records of the private hospital produced by
the petitioner are at Ex.P11. This document shows that he
was admitted to the hospital on 3-2-2014 at 1.00 p.m. and
was discharged on 18-2-2014. Though the history shown in
this document is in consonance with the contentions of the
petitioner, it is obviously, subsequent to the FIR being
registered by the police. Even Ex.P11 does not show that
any MLC intimation was issued to the Police.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42496
17. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contends that the Bill Nos.27 and 28 show that the said
Varadaraju and the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.50/- to
the Government Hospital, KGF on 23-1-2014 and similar
amount to SNR Hospital, Kolar on 24-1-2014. The records
of these hospitals are not produced by the petitioner.
Therefore, it is evident that there is discrepancy between
Ex.P7 and the Bill Nos.27 to 30.
18. From the above evidence on record a doubt arises
as to whether the petitioner had sustained injuries in an
assault on 27-1-2014. It is pertinent to note that if Ex.P7 is
in respect of the injuries sustained on 27-1-2014, definitely,
the injuries were not pertaining to the accidental injuries.
Therefore, the case sheet of SNR Hospital was essential to
ward off the doubt which goes against the petitioner.
Though the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has
made his best efforts to convince this Court that the
fallacies of the SNR Government Hospital, Kolar, should not
become a reason to deprive the petitioner from the
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42496
compensation, I am unable to accept the contentions, for,
there are many discrepancies which show that the injuries
were not inflicted as stated by the petitioner.
19. The decision in the case of Ravi Vs.
Badarinarayana referred supra lays down that only for the
reason that there is a delay in filing the complaint, a
claimant should not be deprived of the compensation.
Evidently, it was a case wherein the sole ground on which
the petition came to be rejected was delay in filing the FIR.
There were no other discrepancies in the evidence. In the
case on hand, the cause of the injury, manner of accident,
delayed filing of complaint, lack of hospital records loom
large on the claim of the petitioner. The spontaneity of the
information provided by the petitioner to the medical officer
gain importance as it would normally be bereft of any
embellishment, extraneous considerations being creeping in
the narration as an outcome of consultation and
deliberations. Therefore, I am unable to accept the
contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant petitioner.
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42496
20. The Tribunal has bestowed its attention on all the
above discrepancies narrated by this Court. It has also
considered the fact that the manner in which the accident is
narrated in the petition is not adhered to in the evidence led
before the Tribunal. The PWs 3 and 4 were not suggested
that the tractor had not dashed against the two wheeler on
which the petitioner was travelling. Therefore, the very fact
that the petitioner had sustained injuries in the accident is
doubtful.
21. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is bereft of
any merits and therefore, the same is liable to be
dismissed. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The appeal filed by the petitioner/appellant is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
tsn*
