Karnataka High Court
D Jayaramu vs Smt Leelavathi on 22 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15809
MFA No. 3148 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3148 OF 2015(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
D.JAYARAMU
S/O LATE DODDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
1ST CROSS, SIDDARTHA NAGARA,
MADDUR-571 428.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.MOHAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. LEELAVATHI
S/O K.B.THIMMARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
SAPTHAGIRI EXTENSION,
BEHIND SAPTHAGIRI COLLEGE,
TUMKUR-572 101.
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R 2. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
Location: HIGH INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SUNDARAM TOWERS, 46, WHITE ROAD,
ROYATTAH, CHENNAI-600 014.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
BY SRI. O.MAHESH., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.01.2014
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15809
MFA No. 3148 of 2015
PASSED IN MVC NO.4870/2010 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER,
MACT & XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BANGALORE.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.H.Mohan Kumar., learned counsel for the appellant
has appeared in person.
Sri.O.Mahesh., learned counsel for respondent No.2 has
appeared through video conferencing.
2. Notice to the respondents was ordered on
22.03.2016. A perusal of the office note depicts that
respondent No.1 is served. Respondent No.1 has neither
engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as
a 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.
NC: 2024:KHC:15809
5. It is the case of the claimant that on the Twenty-
sixth day of June 2009, at about 3:30 p.m., he was walking on
the road opposite pedestrian under pass of Sheshadri road. At
that time, a driver of a car bearing Reg. No.KA-06-M-4479
came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant. Due
to the impact, he fell and sustained injuries. Immediately, he
was shifted to K.C General Hospital. Contending that he is
entitled for compensation, the claimant filed a claim petition.
In response to the notice, the respondents appeared
through their counsel and filed written statement denying the
petition averments. Among other grounds, they prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The
Tribunal vide Judgment dated:20.01.2014 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. Heard, the contentions urged on
NC: 2024:KHC:15809
behalf of the respective parties and perused the appeal papers
and also the records with utmost care.
7. The point that requires consideration is whether the
Tribunal is justified in dismissing the Claim Petition.
8. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. A perusal of the claim petition reveals that the
claimant specifically contended that he was injured on account
of rash and negligent driving by a driver of a Car bearing Reg.
No.KA-06-M-4479 on the Twenty-sixth day of June 2009.
However, a complaint is made on the next day of the
occurrence of the accident i.e., on Twenty-seventh day of June
2009. There is a delay in making a complaint.
An attempt is made on behalf of the claimant that he was
injured on account of the rash and negligent driving of a Car
bearing Reg.No.KA-06-M-4479. However, the Accident Register
depicts otherwise. Ex.R3 is the accident register issued by the
K.C General Hospital, Malleswaram, Bangalore-03. A note is
made on 26.06.2009. It reads as under:
"H/o. RTA at K.R. Circle at around 3:30 p.m.,
on 26.06.2009 by car KA-02-2249/ KA-03-Z-9283
NC: 2024:KHC:15809
(a KPTCL department car O/E patient conscious and
oriented").
Ex.R4 is the Intimation Letter issued by the Causality
Medical Officer, K.C General Hospital, Malleswaram, Bangalore
to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Malleswaram Police Station. It is
dated:26.06.2009. In the intimation letter it is noted as under:
"H/o. RTA at K.R. Circle at around 3:30 p.m.,
on 26.06.2009 by a car KA-02-2249/ KA-03-Z-9283
(a KPTCL department car)".
There is a difference in the registration number of the
Car. Though the claimant contends that he was hit by a Car
bearing Reg. No.KA-06-M-4479, the records speaks otherwise.
Hence, it raises a doubt about the genuineness of the claim.
The Tribunal extenso referred to the material on record and
rightly dismissed 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 rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC:15809
9. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MRP
