Karnataka High Court
Smt.Nanjamma @ Anjamma vs M/S. Srs Travels on 15 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14778
MFA No. 8368 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8368 OF 2013(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SMT. NANJAMMA @ ANJAMMA
WIFE OF THIPPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HULUVANGALA VILLAGE,
KOLALA HOBLI,
YELERAMPURA POST,
KORATAGERE TALUK.
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.P.BHUVAN., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. SRS TRAVELS
PROP: K.T.RAJASHEKAR,
NO.321, T.S.P.ROAD,
Digitally signed by
OPP: BENGALURU MEDICAL COLLEGE,
PREMCHANDRA M R KALASIPALYAM,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BANGALORE-560 002.
KARNATAKA
2. THE STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
FORT BRANCH, NO. 303,
PLATINUM JUBILEE BUILDING,
2ND FLOOR, SLN CHARITIES PREMISES,
K.R.ROAD, BENGALURU-2.
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
3. M/S. ICICI LOMBARD INS. CO. LTD.,
ZENITH HOUSE, KESHAVARAO KHADE MARG,
MAHALAXMI, MUMBAI-400 051.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14778
MFA No. 8368 of 2013
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.M.GIRISHA., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
SRI. B.C.SHIVANNEGOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.07.2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.2618/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM,
BENGALURU.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.K.P.Bhuvan., learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda., learned counsel for respondent No.3
have appeared in person.
There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1,
either personally or through video conferencing.
2. Notice to the respondents was ordered on
21.07.2016. A perusal of the office note depicts that
respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. Respondent
NC: 2024:KHC:14778
No.2 neither engaged the services of an advocate nor
conducted the case as party in person.
3. Though the appeal is listed today for dismissal, it is
heard finally.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
5. It is the case of the claimant that on the fourth day
of November 2010 at about 6 p.m., she was waiting to cross
Bengaluru - Tumkur N.H.44 road at Anchepalya. At that time, a
Tempo traveller bearing No.KA-01-D-8341 came in a rash and
negligent manner and hit her. Due to the impact, the claimant
fell and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, she was
shifted to Sri Sailakshmi Nursing Home at Anchepalya and
thereafter, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Koratagere
and took treatment as an inpatient. Contending that she is
entitled for compensation, the claimant filed a claim petition.
In response to the notice, the first respondent did not
appear before the Tribunal and placed ex-parte. Respondents 2
and 3 appeared through their counsel and filed written
NC: 2024:KHC:14778
statement denying the petition averments. Among other
grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The
Tribunal vide Judgment dated:18.07.2013 dismissed the Claim
Petition. The claimant has assailed the Judgment of the
Tribunal in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the
Memorandum of appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the respective parties have
urged several contentions.
Sri.K.P.Bhuvan., learned counsel for the claimant in
presenting his arguments strenuously urged that the claimant
was illiterate and she was not aware about the procedure to
make a complaint. Hence, there is a delay in making a
complaint.
Counsel Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda., for the Insurance
Company in presenting his arguments vehemently contended
that there is a delay in making a complaint. He argued by
saying that there is a difference in date and time of the
NC: 2024:KHC:14778
accident in the documents. Counsel submits that the appeal is
devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.
7. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the
respective parties and perused the appeal papers and also the
records with utmost care.
8. The point that requires consideration is whether the
Tribunal is justified in dismissing the Claim Petition.
9. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. According to the claimant, the accident occurred on
04.11.2010. However, a complaint is made on 06.11.2010.
There is a delay in making a complaint.
Ex.P.10 is the discharge summary of the claimant issued
by Sai Lakshmi Hospital. A perusal of the same reveals the date
of admission as 04.11.2010 and date of discharge is shown as
07.11.2010. In the brief history column, it is mentioned as
under:
"H/o RTA at Anchepalya, Tumkur Road at
around 5:30 pm., on 04.11.2010."
NC: 2024:KHC:14778
Suffice it to note that the claimant was admitted to Taluk
Hospital, Koratagere on 08.11.2010 and was discharged on
26.12.2010.
Ex.P.5 is the Wound Certificate issued by Dr.P.A.Suresh,
Department of Orthopedics, General Hospital, Koratagere. In
the wound certificate, it is noted as under:
"Alleged H/o. RTA at Anchepalya on
06.11.2010 at 4:30 p.m.,"
Ex.P.11 is the case sheet of the claimant from Taluk
Hospital, Koratagere. In Complaints column, it is noted as
under:
"H/o. fall on 05.11.2010
C/o. pain in (L) shoulder and chest."
In the Claim Petition, the claimant contends that the
accident occurred on 04.11.2010. However, in the wound
certificate, discharge summary and case sheet, the date and
time of the accident is noted differently. Furthermore, a
complaint is made on 06.11.2010. There is a delay of 02 days
in making a complaint. This raises a doubt about the
genuineness of the claim. The Tribunal extenso referred to the
NC: 2024:KHC:14778
material on record and concluded that the claimant had failed
to establish the date and time of the accident and rejected the
claim petition. In my view, the conclusion so arrived at by the
Tribunal is just and proper. I find no reasons to interfere with
the judgment of the Tribunal.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal is devoid of
merits and it is liable to be dismissed.
10. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MRP
