Karnataka High Court
Satish Manohar Kesarkar vs Somanath R. Tavare on 27 November, 2023
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13860
MFA No. 22394 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.22394/2011(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SATISH MANOHAR KESARKAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: POWER LOOM WORKER,
R/O: WADAGAON, TALUK: BELAGAVI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI H. M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SOMANATH R. TAVARE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 95/2, VARADAPPA GALLI,
KHASBAG, BELAGAVI.
2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
Digitally
signed by COMPANY LTD.,
BHARATHI CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI.
HM ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 - NOTICE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FIELD UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.10.2010, PASSED
IN MVC NO.1036/2004, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI,
AND TO AWARD JUST AND REASONABLE COMPENSATION, ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13860
MFA No. 22394 of 2011
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the
judgment and award dated 12.10.2010, passed by the
I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Belagavi, in MVC
No.1036/2004, questioning dismissal of the claim petition.
2. It is the case of the claimant that on
22.10.2003 at 09.30 a.m. the claimant was going on his
bicycle on the road at Khasbag on left side of the road and
at that time an auto rickshaw No.CTL-0338 by coming in a
high speed and rash and negligent manner dashed the
claimant's bicycle due to which the claimant sustained
injuries. Therefore the claimant has filed the claim petition
seeking compensation. The tribunal has dismissed the
claim petition on the ground that the accident is doubtful
one.
3. Heard the arguments and perused the material
placed before the Court.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13860
4. The learned counsel for appellant/claimant
submitted that the tribunal has wrongly dismissed the
claim petition even though there are evidence on record to
prove that the claimant has suffered injuries in the motor
vehicle accident and place reliance on the Ex.P.1 wound
certificate for proving the accident.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for
respondent insurance company justified the judgment and
award passed by the tribunal.
6. The tribunal has assigned reason at paragraph
No.14 in the judgment of dismissal of claim petition. The
accident was occurred on 22.10.2003. As per Ex.P.1
wound certificate admittedly the claimant was admitted to
the hospital on 22.12.2003; it is after two months from
the alleged accident. From the Ex.P.1 wound certificate
admittedly the claimant was examined by the doctor for
the first time in the hospital on 01.04.2004. There is no
complaint lodged before the police and no crime is
registered. Except the wound certificate and other x-ray
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13860
films, x-ray report and disability certificate, there is no
other evidence produced by the claimant.
7. When it is the case of the claimant that he has
suffered fracture of femur of right leg and femur bone
being the major bone, but the claimant has not admitted
to the hospital for two months. This shows some suspicion
regarding the case. Further more, after four months from
the date of the accident, the claimant was first examined
by the doctor for the alleged injuries sustained by him.
8. When this being the fact that the claimant has
suffered fracture of femur, but admitting to the hospital
after two months and examining the claimant is after six
months from the date of accident, this creates doubt
regarding the factum of accident as narrated by the
claimant. Therefore this is correctly assessed and analyzed
by the tribunal while dismissing the claim petition.
Therefore, the reasons assigned by the tribunal in
dismissing the claim petition are not found to be perverse.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13860
Therefore the appeal found to be being devoid of merit is
liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed.
ii) The judgment and award dated
12.10.2010, passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil
Judge and MACT, Belagavi, in MVC
No.1036/2004, stands confirmed.
iii) No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE
MRK
CT-ASC
