Karnataka High Court
Channabasavva W/O Shankarappa ... vs Somanagouda S/O Basangouda Patil on 6 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2630
MFA No. 23259 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23259 OF 2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SMT. CHANNABASAVVA
W/O. SHANKARAPPA SOMANKOPPA,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: TIMMASAGAR ROAD, NEKAR NAGAR,
HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA PUROHIT, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. DINESH M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SOMANAGOUDA S/O. BASANGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE,
R/O: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.
2. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,2ND FLOOR,
SHRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET,
Digitally
signed by
HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
SAROJA
SAROJA HANGARAKI
HANGARAKI Date: 3. CHENNAPPA S/O. SHEKAPPA MUGUD,
2024.02.19
16:02:16 AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER OF VEHICLE,
+0530
R/O: BIDNAL, TQ: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MISS. ASAMA N.M. ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:03-03-2012 PASSED IN
MVC.NO.655/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HUBLI, DISMISSING THE
PETITION FILED U/SEC.166 OF MV ACT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2630
MFA No. 23259 of 2012
THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. Unsuccessful claimant is the appellant
challenging the validity of the judgment and award passed
in MVC No.655/2007 on the file of Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Hubballi dated 03.03.2012.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of this case are as under:
Claimant's case is that when she was proceeding with
her husband on 19.06.2007, at about 06:00 p.m. near
Budihal cross, driver of tractor bearing No.KA-25/T-9026
came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against
the claimant whereby she fell down and both wheels of the
tractor ran over on her body on pelvic region and she
sustained grievous injuries and she was shifted to KIMS
hospital, wherein she was treated as a indoor patient.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2630
Therefore, she laid a claim for awarding suitable
compensation.
4. Claim petition was resisted by filing detailed
written statement by the respondents. Insurance Company
has denied the claim petition averments in toto including
involvement of tractor bearing No.KA-25/T-9026.
5. Tribunal after raising issues, recorded evidence
of claimant as well as Dr.Shivanand Doddamani as PW.2.
As many as 18 documents were placed on record on behalf
of the claimant which were exhibited and marked as
Exs.P.1 to P.18.
6. On behalf of respondents, Officer of Insurance
Company by name Mohan is examined as RW.1 and policy
is marked as Ex.R.1.
7. Tribunal on cumulative consideration of oral and
documentary evidence on record, rejected the claim
petition by recording a finding that involvement of the
tractor is not established by placing necessary evidence on
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2630
record and the injuries sustained by the claimant is not on
account of road traffic accident occurred on 19.06.2007 as
is contended by the claimant involving tractor bearing
No.KA-25/T-9026.
8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, claimant
is in appeal.
9. Sri.Raghavendra Purohit, learned counsel for
the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum, vehemently contended that the Tribunal
grossly erred in not understanding the nuances of trial
before the Tribunal and sought for strict proof of accident
which is impermissible resulting miscarriage of justice.
10. He also contended that the material on record is
not properly appreciated inasmuch as mere delay in
lodging the complaint has been blown out of proportion by
the Tribunal in disbelieving the case of the claimant.
11. He also pointed out that the material
discrepancy alleged in the medical records should not have
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2630
resulted in denying just compensation to the claimant and
sought for allowing of the appeal.
12. Smt.Asama N.M. on behalf of Smt.Preeti
Shashank supported the impugned judgment by
contending that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the
material evidence on record and sought for dismissal of
the appeal.
13. In view of the rival contentions of the parties,
this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
14. On such perusal of material on record, it is
crystal clear that the claim petition came to be filed in
respect of a road traffic accident said to have occurred on
19.06.2007.
15. According to the claimant, when she was
walking back to her house along with her husband near
Budihal cross, she met with an accident involving tractor
bearing No.KA-25/T-9026.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2630
16. According to her, both the tyres of tractor ran
over on her body on pelvic region and she was taken to
the KIMS hospital and there she was treated in outpatient
department at the first instance, wherein there is no
mention of road traffic accident.
17. On the contrary, what has been mentioned is a
fall. Further, no visible blood injuries are noted on the
body of the claimant when she was first treated by the
doctor in KIMS hospital.
18. There is huge delay of 14-15 days in lodging
the complaint. Delay is not properly explained in the
complaint. Fact that the driver of tractor has been charge
sheeted is not a sole factor based on which the Tribunal
could have come to the conclusion that the claimant has
sustained accidental injuries involving tractor bearing
No.KA-25/T-9026.
19. The discrepancy in the medical records in not
mentioning at least the fact that the injuries sustained by
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2630
the claimant is on account of the road traffic accident
cannot be believed. Further, even according to the
complaint averments itself, there was a private settlement
and when the owner of the tractor failed to settle the claim
of the claimant, a belated complaint came to be filed.
Pertinently, as per claim petition averments she was
proceeding along with her husband. No witness is
examined other than doctor.
20. Such an explanation is not believed by the
Tribunal having regard to the peculiar facts and
circumstance of the case on hand.
21. Even after re-appreciation of material on
record, this Court cannot form any different opinion than
that of the Tribunal in disbelieving the case of the
claimant.
22. Accordingly, there is no legal infirmity or
perversity in the impugned judgment, whereby
interference is called for, exercising the powers vested in
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2630
this Court in accepting the appeal and setting aside the
impugned judgment.
23. In view of the foregoing discussion, following
order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SH
