Karnataka High Court
Sounder Rajan M vs Venugopal A M on 25 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:16606
MFA No. 9013 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9013 OF 2015(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SOUNDER RAJAN.M
S/O LATE MURUGESHAN,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDENT AT NO.432,
NEAR EAST POINT COLLEGE,
ASHWATHAPPA MAIN,
SUBBAINAPALYA, BANASWADI,
BANGALORE-560 043.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. T.I.ABDULLA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VENUGOPAL.A.M.
S/O MARIYAPPA.A.M.,
AGED 60 YEARS,
#5/106, 10TH MAIN ROAD,
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N 11TH 'A' CROSS,
Location: HIGH MALLESHWARAM,
COURT OF BANGALORE-560 003.
KARNATAKA
ALSO AT:
NO.8, MEK PERSEN ROAD,
COOK TOWN,
BANGALORE-560 005.
2. M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
GROUND FLOOR, NO.31,
TBR TOWER, 1ST CROSS,
NEW MISSION ROAD,
NEAR BANGALORE STOCK EXCHANGE,
BANGALORE-560 027.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:16606
MFA No. 9013 of 2015
(BY SRI. S.SHAKER SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. B.PRADEEP., 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:11.08.2015
PASSED IN MVC NO.6307/2013 ON THE FILE OF XXII
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT,
BENGALURU.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.T.I.Abdulla., learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri.B.Pradeep., learned counsel for respondent No.2 have
appeared in person.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts are these:
On the Seventh day of September 2013 at about 14:00
Hours, the claimant was cycling from Banasawadi to Brigade
road. When he was reached ITC Flyover, near Cox Town Circle,
suddenly a Scorpio Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MJ-2900
came from Syndi colony towards Banasawadi in a rash and
NC: 2024:KHC:16606
negligent manner and hit his bicycle. Due to the impact, the
claimant fell and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he
was shifted to Santosh Hospital, Bengaluru. Contending that he
is entitled for compensation, the claimant filed a claim petition.
In response to the notice, the respondents appeared
through their counsel. The first respondent did not file his
written statement. The second respondent Insurance Company
filed its written statement denying the petition averments.
Among other grounds, it 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:11.08.2015 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. Heard the contentions urged on
behalf of the respective parties and perused the appeal papers
and also the record with utmost care.
NC: 2024:KHC:16606
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. According to the claimant, the accident occurred on
the Seventh day of September 2013. However, his wife made a
complaint on the Seventh day of October 2013. There is a delay
of thirty days in making a complaint.
Ex.P.32 is the MLC Register extract. In the History of
accident, injury or poisoning column, it is noted as under:
"Patient was on cycle hit by a Scorpio on Cox
Town bridge at 2:45 pm on 07/09/2013."
A perusal of the MLC Register extract depicts that the
vehicle details are mentioned at the extreme right side of the
column subsequently. Hence, it can be safely concluded that
there is an insertion in the MLC register extract. The delay in
making a complaint and insertion in the MLC register extract
raises a doubt about the genuineness of the claim.
Furthermore, the claimant has not examined any eye
witnesses. The Tribunal extenso referred to the material on
record and concluded that the claimant has failed to prove the
NC: 2024:KHC:16606
involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and the
offending vehicle has been falsely implicated for wrongful gain
and dismissed the Claim Petition. In my view, the conclusion
and the finding 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.
7. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
