Karnataka High Court
Mamatha K B vs B Chandrashekar on 8 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5535
MFA No. 6612 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
M.F.A. NO. 6612 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MAMATHA K B
W/O CHANNABASAVANNA M B
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT BANDIHALLI VILLAGE & POST,
NITTOOR HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK,
PIN:572216
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. B CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O B.BASAPPA,
AGE MAJOR,
Digitally R/AT BANDIHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
signed by NITTOOR HOBLI
BHARATHI S
Location: GUBBI TALUK
HIGH COURT
OF PIN-572216
KARNATAKA
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BEHIND KRISHNA TALKIES,
M.G.ROAD,
TUMKUR-572101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5535
MFA No. 6612 of 2014
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.7.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.707/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT-17, GUBBI, DSMISSING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The above appeal is filed by the claimant challenging
the judgment and award dated 10.07.2014 passed in MVC
No.707/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge, Member, Additional
MACT-17, Gubbi1 wherein the Tribunal has dismissed the
claim petition.
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 the claim petition was filed
claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by the
claimant- appellant2 in a road traffic accident dated
23.04.2011. It is the case of the claimant that when she
was traveling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle along with
her husband's brother, the rider of the motorcycle drove the
Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'
Hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant'
NC: 2024:KHC:5535
same in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed and
when they passed a ditch, the pillion rider was thrown from
the motorcycle causing the accident in question, wherein she
suffered grievous injuries. Claiming compensation for the
same, she filed a claim petition arraying the owner and
insurer of the motorcycle as respondents. The owner and
insurer entered appearance in the claim proceedings and
contested the same by filing separate statement of
objections. The claimant examined herself as PW.1 and two
witnesses as PWs.2 and 3. Exhibits P1 to P20 were marked
in evidence. The representative of the insurer was examined
as RW.1 and the doctor has been examined as CW.1.
Exhibits R1 to R4 and Exs.C1 to C3 were marked in evidence.
The Tribunal by judgment and award dated 10.07.2014 has
dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved, the present
appeal is filed.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
claimant that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated that
the case putforth by the claimant as well as the medical
evidence while dismissing the claim petition. It is the further
NC: 2024:KHC:5535
contention of the claimant that the Tribunal has erroneously
recorded a finding that there was a delay in lodging the
complaint without appreciating the fact that claimant was
being treated as an inpatient for 15 days.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
insurer justifies the award passed by the Tribunal and seeks
for dismissal of the above appeal.
6. It is forthcoming that the Tribunal while
appreciating the testimony of PW.1 has noticed that she has
stated in her cross examination that she did not remember
the date on which she proceeded on the bike and when she
was treated as an inpatient for 15 days. Further, the Tribunal
has appreciated the testimony of PW.2 who is the husband of
the claimant wherein he has stated that he lodged a
complaint after 15 days after making enquiry with the
advocate. Further, the Tribunal has appreciated the relevant
facts and noticed that the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 are
contradictory to each other and which gives a doubt about
the accident.
NC: 2024:KHC:5535
7. The Tribunal has also appreciated of the stand
taken by the 1st Respondent owner of the vehicle and has
further noticed that in the IMV report it is stated no damages
have been caused to the vehicle. That there is no MLC as on
date of accident. The Tribunal has also appreciated the
evidence of the Doctor CW.1, who has stated that he is not
aware of the treatment taken by the Petitioner on
23.04.2011.
8. Having noticed the material on record, the
Tribunal has recorded a finding that the claimant has not
produced any rebuttal evidence to rebut the document
produced by Ex.R1 to R4 which creates a doubt in the mind
of the Court. Hence, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that
the claimant has failed to prove that the accident occurred in
the manner as averred in the claim petition.
9. The Tribunal having adequately appreciated the
oral and documentary evidence on record and recorded the
findings as aforementioned. The appellant has failed in
demonstrating that the said finding is in any manner
NC: 2024:KHC:5535
erroneous and requires interference by this Court in the
present appeal.
10. Hence, the following
ORDER
i) Appeal is dismissed.
ii) The Judgment and award dated 10.07.2014
passed in MVC No.707/2011 pending on the file of
the Senior Civil Judge, Member, Additional
MACT - 17, Gubbi is affirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BS
