Karnataka High Court
R Thyagaraju vs The Manager on 1 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4451
MFA No. 10903 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA NO. 10903 OF 2013 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
R. THYAGARAJU
S/O RAMAIAH, AGED 62 YEARS
R/A NO. E-16, 4TH MAIN, 8TH MAIN
S R NAGAR, BANGALORE - 27
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAKASH M.H, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE
CO. LTD. MARATHAHALLI
BRANCH OFFICE
NO.86/80, 2ND FLOOR
OLD AIRPORT ROAD
Digitally signed by
MALA K N MARATHAHALLI
Location: HIGH COURT BANGALORE - 37
OF KARNATAKA
2. VENKATESH T.R, MAJOR
NO.125, PIPELINE
RAVINDRANAGAR
BANGALORE - 68
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADV. FOR R1;
R2 - HELD SUFFICIENT)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4451
MFA No. 10903 of 2013
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.07.2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.4528/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XIX ACCM, MEMBER,
MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, (SCCH-XXIII), BANGALORE,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the petitioner has challenged the
Judgment and Award dated 20.07.2013 passed in
MVC.No.4528/2010 by the MACT and XXI Addl. Small
Causes Judge and XIX A.C.M.M, Court of Small Causes,
Bangalore (in short, 'the Tribunal').
2. The parties will be referred to as per their
status before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
3. Brief facts of the case are, on 01.03.2010 at
10.30 a.m., while the petitioner was walking at 4th Cross,
Gandhinagar, Bangalore, as a pedestrian, hit by an
autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-D-8961 injuring him.
After taking treatment at St.Martha's Hospital, NIMHANS
and KIMS Hospital, Bengaluru, the petitioner approached
NC: 2024:KHC:4451
the Tribunal for grant of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
Claim was opposed by the Insurance Company. The
Tribunal, after holding enquiry and perusing the impugned
Judgment, dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner has filed this appeal on various
grounds.
4. Heard arguments of Sri.M.H.Prakash, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri.O.Mahesh, learned
counsel for the Insurance Company.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that soon after the accident, the petitioner was
carried to St. Marthas Hospital in the very autorickshaw by
its driver, he has admitted him for treatment, after
admission, he abandoned the petitioner. Due to
confusion, the petitioner has mentioned the autorickshaw
number in the complaint as 'KA-09/8961' instead of
"KA-02/D-8961". The Tribunal has doubted the vehicle
number and rejected the claim petition without assessing
NC: 2024:KHC:4451
the compensation. Hence, he sought for an opportunity to
clarify the discrepancy before the Tribunal.
6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has
contended that the petitioner has relied on his own self-
serving testimony and Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. The petitioner is
an educated person, he has specifically stated in the
complaint the registration number of the autorickshaw as
'KA-09/8961'. There is no material placed before the
Tribunal explaining the discrepancy. Under such
circumstances, the Tribunal is right in holding that the
petitioner has not clarified the registration number, he
himself claims the autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.
KA-09/8961. Under such circumstances, liability cannot
be fastened against the driver of the autorickshaw bearing
Reg.No.KA-02/D-8961. It is further contended that if the
matter requires remand for the fault of the petitioner, he
shall be eschewed from claiming interest from the date of
filing of the claim petition till date of remand of this appeal
and supported the impugned Judgment.
NC: 2024:KHC:4451
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed by both sides and perused the
records.
8. The material on record did point out that there
was an accident on 01.03.2010 at 10.30 a.m., at 4th
Cross, Gandhinagar, involving petitioner and the
autorickshaw. When the complaint was filed to the Police,
the petitioner has mentioned the registration number of
the autorickshaw as KA-09/8961. Accordingly, F.I.R was
registered and investigation was carried. Only in the
charge sheet, the autorickshaw number has been changed
as KA-02/D-8961. How there is a sudden change of
registration number of the autorickshaw in the
investigation papers has to be explained by the petitioner.
9. The Tribunal records are made available before
this Court, which consists of Police case diary papers which
consists of M.L.C register extract issued by the St.Martha's
Hospital and also Police notice issued to St.Martha's
Hospital to furnish M.L.C. extract. There is no doubt about
NC: 2024:KHC:4451
the driver of the autorickshaw carried the petitioner to
St.Martha's Hospital at 10.45 a.m., on 01.03.2010. The
accident register extract of St.Martha's Hospital clearly
points out the autorickshaw number as KA-02/D-8961.
This aspect is not brought to the notice of the Tribunal.
When the driver himself has furnished such information
soon after taking the patient to the St.Martha's Hospital,
confusion in the complaint ought to have been clarified
before the Tribunal. Law is settled that the petitioner is
required to establish the accident independent of Police
records. The first and foremost information furnished at
the time of hospital admission prevails over the Police
records. Similar is the situation in the case on hand.
These are the aspects, which require consideration by the
Tribunal.
10. On perusal of the impugned Judgment, the
Tribunal though dismissed the claim, ought to have
assessed the compensation on the basis of the injuries
sustained by the claimant. Since the Tribunal has not
NC: 2024:KHC:4451
assessed the compensation, it is a fit case for remand
keeping open all the contentions of both sides. The appeal
merits consideration, in the result, the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment and award is
set aside.
iii) The claim petition is restored to the file
of the Tribunal.
iv) The Tribunal shall afford opportunity to
both the parties to lead further evidence
and to decide the case on merits in
accordance with law, uninfluenced by
any of the observations made supra.
v) The parties shall appear before the
Tribunal on 22.02.2024 without any
further notice.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BNV
CT: BHK
