Karnataka High Court
Seetharam S/O Kadirappa vs The Divisional Manager on 2 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4941
MFA No. 3909 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3909 OF 2013 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. SEETHARAM
S/O KADIRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/O NO 15, I MAIN ROAD,
IN FRONT OF MARUTHI TALKIES
RAJAGOPALANAGARA MAIN ROAD
PEENYA 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE 560058
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M ANIL KUMAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE 0
Digitally signed JYOTHI MAHAL 49,
by BHARATHI
S ST MARKS ROAD,
Location: HIGH BANGALORE 560 001
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. KRISHNAPPA Y
S/O YELLAPPA
AGED MAJOR
R/O NO 9TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
SHASTRINAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 012
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M ARUN PONAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R1
NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD 29.5.2018)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1242/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4941
MFA No. 3909 of 2013
MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The above appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the
judgment and award dated 02.01.2013 passed in MVC
No.1242/2011 by the IV Additional Judge, Member, MACT.,
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru1 wherein the claim petition
has filed by the claimant has been dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.
3. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of the
present appeal are that claiming compensation for the injuries
sustained in a road traffic accident which is alleged to have
occurred on 26.11.2021, the claimant filed a claim petition. It
is the case of the claimant that when he was proceeding as a
pillion rider on a motorcycle, an auto rickshaw came in a rash
and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle causing the
accident in question wherein he sustained injuries. Claiming
(Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal')
NC: 2024:KHC:4941
compensation for the same, the claimant filed a claim petition
arraying the insurer and owner of the auto rickshaw as
respondents. The insurer entered appearance before the
Tribunal and contested the claim proceedings.
4. The claimant examined himself as PW.1. Exhibits P1 to P9
were marked in evidence. No oral and documentary evidence
were adduced on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal vide
judgment and award dated 02.01.2013, dismissed the claim
petition. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
5. It is forthcoming that the Tribunal noticed that there was
delay of two days in lodging the complaint. Further, the
registration number of the insured auto rickshaw both in the
FIR (Ex.P1) and in the complaint (Ex.P2) have been altered.
Though PW.1 has denied the alterations, the Tribunal has
recorded a finding that the alterations are visible apparently
and hence, recorded a finding that the denial of alternations by
PW.1 cannot be accepted.
6. Further, it was noticed that the number of auto rickshaw
in the spot Mahazar (Ex.P4) is different from the number of
auto rickshaw that is forthcoming in other documents. A
NC: 2024:KHC:4941
finding is recorded that no explanation is offered with regard to
the difference in the vehicles numbers.
7. The Tribunal has further noticed that the history due to
which the injuries were caused are different in the wound
certificate (Ex.P7), and the discharge summary (Ex.P8). Hence
a finding is recorded that Ex.P7 & 8 contradicts with regard to
the vehicle involved in the accident.
8. It is further noticed that the claimant has not opted to
examine an eyewitness or investigating officer to prove the
involvement of the auto. Hence, the Tribunal noticing the same
has dismissed the claim petition.
9. On a re-appreciation of material on record, it is
forthcoming that the inconsistencies as noticed by the Tribunal
are ex-facie .Having regard to the same, the finding recorded
by the Tribunal is just and proper. No ground is made out to
interfere with the same. Hence, the following
ORDER
i. The above appeal is dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC:4941
ii. The Judgment and Award dated
02.01.2013 passed in MVC No.1242/2011
by the IV Additional Judge, Member, MACT.,
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru is
affirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
