Karnataka High Court
Mallappa Channappa Khot vs Anil Appasab Desai on 9 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3145
MFA No. 100850 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100850 OF 2014 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MALLAPPA CHANNAPPA KHOT,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SAVADI, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S
1A. SMT. PREMA W/O. MALLAPPA KHOT,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC H.H. WORK,
R/O. SAVADI, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
1B. KUMAR RAHUL S/O. MALLAPPA KHOT,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY M/G MOTHER
BHARATHI APPELLANT NO.1A
HM
SMT. PREMA W/O. MALLAPPA KHOT,
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M R/O. SAVADI, TQ: ATHANI.
Date: 2024.02.21
12:00:15 +0530
1C. KUMAR BASAVARAJ S/O. MALLAPPA KHOT,
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY M/G MOTHER
APPELLANT NO.1A
SMT. PREMA W/O. MALLAPPA KHOT,
R/O. SAVADI, TQ: ATHANI.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3145
MFA No. 100850 of 2014
1D. KUMAR CHETHAN S/O. MALLAPPA KHOT,
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY M/G MOTHER
APPELLANT NO.1A
SMT. PREMA W/O. MALLAPPA KHOT,
R/O. SAVADI, TQ: ATHANI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. LAXMAN KURAHATTI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ANANDKUMAR A.MAGADUM, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ANIL APPASAB DESAI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. UDAGAON, TQ: SHIROL,
DIST:KOLHAPUR
(OWNER OF MAHINDRA BOLERO INVADER
BRG NO. MH-09/BB-1420)
2. THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
570-RECTIFIER HOUSE, NAIGAUM CROSS ROAD,
WADALA (W)-MUMBAI-400031.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 DEFERRED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.02.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.645/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND ADDL. MACT, ATHANI, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION
FILED UNDER SECTION 166 OF MV ACT.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3145
MFA No. 100850 of 2014
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Shri. Laxman Kurahatti representing Shri. Anand
Magadum, learned counsel for appellants and Shri. G. N.
Raichur, learned counsel respondent No.2.
2. Unsuccessful claimant in MVC No.645/2008 is the
appellant challenging the validity of judgment and award dated
16.02.2013 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Athani.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the present appeal are as under:
3.1. A petition came to be filed under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'M.V. Act'), contending that
on 07.02.2008 at about 3.30 p.m., when the petitioner
proceeding on new Pulsar motorcycle as a pillion rider, the rider
of the encountered with an accident on account of rash and
negligent driving of Mahindra Bolero Invader bearing
registration No.MH-09/BB-1420.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3145
3.2. The injured was shifted to the hospital and he has
been treated there and got cured of his injuries and therefore,
laid a claim for compensation.
4. In pursuance of the notice issued in the claim
petition, first respondent appeared before the Court and denied
the claim petition averments in toto, so also the second
respondent who is the Insurance Company of the Mahidra
Bolero Invader.
5. Tribunal after raising necessary issues and after
recording the evidence of the parties, heard the parties in detail
and dismissed the claim petition.
6. While so dismissing the claim petition, the Tribunal
took into consideration the documents produced by the very
claimant himself vide Ex.P.14 where under, the claimant has
stated that he sustained injuries on account of road traffic
accident by stating that he fell from motorcycle.
7. When he was given such a history before the
doctor, which has been recorded in Ex.P.14, how could he
implicate the Bolero jeep in the incident is a question that
remains unanswered on behalf of the claimant.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3145
8. Further, the Tribunal has held in paragraph No.10
of the impugned judgment as under;
"10. In the affidavit filed in lieu of his
examination-in-chief Pw.2 stated that on that day
he was returning to Savadi village on the Pulsar
motorcycle along with deceased petitioner on the
pillion seat. He further stated that on Athani-
Nandagaon road at a distance of 3 km. from
Athani, a Bolero jeep came from opposite direction
and dashed to their motorcycle resulting injuries to
himself and the deceased petitioner. He narrated
that after the accident in the very same Bolero jeep
he took the petitioner to the Govt. hospital Athani
and from there to the Dr. Sudhir Shah's hospital
Miraj for further treatment. Lastly he stated that on
8.2.2008 he filed complaint in the Athani P.S. He is
cross-examined by both respondents. Now let us
find out whether there is any element of truth in
the evidence of said witness. Before that I would
like to say few lines about the documents
produced. Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.2 is the
FIR, Ex P.3 is the MVI report, Ex.P.4 is the wound
certificate, Ex.P.5 Is the Charge-sheet, Ex.P.6 is
the spot mahazar, Jeep mahazar is Ex. P.9,
Motorcycle mahazar is Ex.P.10, Supplementary
statement of Pw.2 is Ex.P.11, statement of
deceased petitioner and one alleged eye-witness
Vijay are the Ex.P.12 and P.13. One more copy of
complaint and FIR are produced at Ex.P.7 and P.8.
In addition to these police documents Pw.1 has
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3145
also produced three discharge cards issued by Dr.
Sudhir Shah's hospital at Ex P.14 to P.16. The
Ex.P.17 and P.18 are the receipts and
prescriptions, Ex.P.19 and P.20 are the RTCS,
Ex.P.21 is the disability certificate, Ex P.22 and
P.23 are the x-ray films, Ex P.24 is the death
certificate of the deceased petitioner and Ex.P.25 is
the survivor certificate. Deliberately I have referred
to each document with an Intention to show what
all the documents that are produced and relied by
the petitioners, who are LRs of the original
petitioner. If these documents are properly
examined the real truth can be unraveled. No
doubt in the complaint filed on 8.2.2008 at 6.00
p.m. Pw.2 alleged that he met with an accident on
7.2.2008 at 3.30 p.m. on account of negligence of
the Bolero vehicle driver, one thing can be noticed
that in the recitals of complaint as well as evidence
of the Pw.2 he was riding the motorcycle at
moderate speed and Bolero jeep came from
opposite direction and hit to their motorcycle
resulting grievous injuries to the pillion rider and
simple Injuries to him. Hear tribunal has to
meticulously examine two things. Firstly as stated
by Pw.2 it was a head-on-collision and the same
thing is recited in the complaint averment, but such
being the case in the motor vehicle repot it is
stated that rear right mud-guard of Bolero was
damaged and rear bumper towards right side of it
was having small scratches. It is further stated that
all other parts except the above were in order. It
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3145
totally rules out the head-on-collision between the
two vehicles. Taking judicial notice of the make up
(manufacturing) of Pulsar vehicle, which is also a
heavy two wheeler, one can imagine that if it hits
or the Bolero jeep hits it how damages can be
caused to the Bolero jeep. But not even a single
scratch mark was found on the front side of the
jeep. Secondly as per the charge-sheet para no.17
in the said accident Pw.2 suffered simple injuries,
whereas deceased petitioner suffered grievous
injuries. I wonder when there was a head-on-
collision between the Bolero jeep and the Pulsar
motor cycle instead of the rider (Pw.2) it is the
pillion rider, who suffers grievous injuries. I would
explain these anomalies by referring to the some
other documents."
9. Shri. Laxman Kurahatti, learned counsel for
appellants vehemently contended that the Tribunal has taken
two pedantic approach in seeking strict proof of the accident
which is impermissible before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal and sought for allowing the appeal.
10. Per contra, Shri. G. N. Raichur, learned counsel
respondent No.2, contended that even though strict rules of
evidence is not applicable to the Tribunal, minimum evidence is
to be placed on record to show the genesis of the accident.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3145
11. He further contended that in the case on hand there
is clear mentioning of the history in Ex.P.14 that the injured
sustained the injuries by fall from the motorcycle, false
implication of the Bolero jeep has been rightly appreciated by
the Tribunal and rightly dismissed the claim petition and
sought for dismissal of the appeal.
12. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this
Court perused the material on record, meticulously.
13. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
crystal clear that the Tribunal has applied its mind in factual
aspects of the matter as is found from paragraph No.10
referred to supra.
14. This Court does not find any legal infirmity or
perversity in such finding recorded by the Tribunal.
15. Further, Ex.P.14 clearly shows that while narrating
the history, claimant himself has not stated that he sustained
the injuries on account of motorcycle dashing against the
Bolero jeep.
16. Under such circumstances, hardly there is any
scope for interference with the well reasoned order of the
Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3145
17. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
Admission declined. Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMM
