Karnataka High Court
Siddappa vs Jakeer Hussain on 15 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14929
MFA No. 10829 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. 10829 OF 2013
(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O BASAPPA,
OLD BATHI VILLAGE,
DAVANAGERE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SHRUTHI., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. M.VINAYA KEERTHY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. JAKEER HUSSAIN
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
S/O MAKBHUL SAB,
I CROSS, GHOUSE NAGARA,
MALEBENNUR, HARIHARA TALUK,
Digitally signed by DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-586 020.
THEJASKUMAR N (DRIVER OF TRACTOR BEARING
Location: HIGH REGN NO.KA - 16/T-1218).
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. DADAPHEER
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O SATHAR SAB,
MALEBENNUR, HARIHARA TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-586 020.
(OWNER OF TRACTOR BEARING
REGN NO.KA-16/T-1218).
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14929
MFA No. 10829 of 2013
AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD,
DAVANAGERE-577 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 AND R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
BY SRI. M.U.POONACHA., 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:02.08.2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.651/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, DAVANAGERE.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Smt.Shruthi., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.M.Vinaya
Keerthy., for the appellant and Sri.M.U.Poonacha., learned
counsel for respondent No.3 have appeared in person.
2. Notice to the respondents was ordered on
30.06.2016. A perusal of the office note depicts that
respondents 1 and 2 are served and unrepresented. They have
neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the
case as party in person.
For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred
to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:14929
3. The brief facts are these:
On the twenty-second day of February 2012 at about
11:00 am., the claimant was going to his land for agricultural
work. It is said that he was standing in front of his land which
is situated near Kabarsthan. At that time, a driver of the
Tractor bearing Registration No.KA-16/T-1218 came from
Yakkegundi Nadhigudi Road in a rash and negligent manner. As
a result of which, the front wheel of the tractor detached from
the Tractor and hit the claimant's legs. Due to the said
accident, both legs of the claimant was fractured. Immediately,
he was taken to Apoorva Hospital. Thereafter, he was admitted
as an patient at Suchethana Hospital, Davanagere. He took
treatment as an inpatient and also as an outpatient.
Contending that he is entitled for compensation, the claimant
filed a claim petition.
In response to the notice, respondents appeared through
their counsel and filed statement of objections denying the
petition averments. Among other grounds, they prayed for
dismissal of the claim petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:14929
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The
Tribunal vide Judgment dated:02.08.2013 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.
4. Learned counsel for the respective parties have
urged several contentions.
Smt.Shruthi., learned counsel for the claimant in
presenting her arguments strenuously urged that the Tribunal
has erred in dismissing the claim petition solely on the ground
that the claimant has failed to furnish the documents pertaining
to Apoorva Hospital. Counsel therefore, submits that
appropriate order may be passed.
Sri.M.U.Poonacha., learned counsel for the Insurance
Company justified the Judgment of the Tribunal. He submits
that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same may be
dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC:14929
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective
parties and perused the appeal papers and also the records
with utmost care.
5. The point that requires consideration is whether the
Tribunal is justified in dismissing the claim petition.
6. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. Suffice it to note that the accident occurred on
22.02.2012. It's a common sense that when a person sustains
injury on account of the accident, he visits the hospital
immediately. In the present case, it is the specific contention of
the claimant that he was taken to Apoorva Hospital and MLC
was recorded in the said hospital. However, there is nothing on
record to show that he visited Apoorva Hospital. It is pivotal to
note that the claimant has furnished the medical documents of
Suchethana Hospital, Davanagere. The Tribunal extenso
referred to the material on record and concluded that the
documents of Suchethana Hospital cannot be taken into
consideration and dismissed the claim petition. In my view, the
conclusion and the finding so arrived at by the Tribunal is just
NC: 2024:KHC:14929
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 the dismissed.
7. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
