Karnataka High Court
Rayappa S/O Mallappa Sullad vs Manjunath S/O Venkappa Prabhakar on 22 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4414
MFA No. 26077 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.26077 OF 2011 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAYAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA SULLAD,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: BAR BENDING,
CENTRING and AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GOVANKOPPA, TQ and DIST: DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P.G. CHIKKANARAGUND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANJUNATH S/O. VENKAPPA PRABHAKAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: DANU NAGAR, NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
ATTIKOLLA, DHARWAD.
2. THE MANAGER,
THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
Digitally signed 4TH FLOOR, KALABURGI MANSION,
by SAMREEN
SAMREEN AYUB OPP: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
AYUB DESHNUR
DESHNUR Date: LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI-20.
2024.02.23
17:04:36 +0530
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20-07-2011 PASSED IN MVC
NO.817/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER FAST TRACK
COURT-III, AT:DHARWAD, DISMISSING PETITION FILED U/SEC. 166
OF M.V. ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4414
MFA No. 26077 of 2011
JUDGMENT
Heard Shri. P. G. Chikkanargund, learned counsel for the
appellant and Shri. S. K. Kayakamath, learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
2. Unsuccessful claimant in MVC No.817/2009 is the
appellant challenging the validity of judgment and award dated
20.07.2011 on the file of Fast Track Court-III, Dharwad.
3. Facts in brief are as under:
3.1. According to the claimant, he works as a bar bender
and he left the house on 20.06.2008 and attended the bar
bending work in a under construction house and while returning
to his native near Hebballi Main Gate, he was waiting for a bus.
At that juncture, a motor cyclist came in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against him and whereby he fell down.
3.2. He was shifted to the hospital and he was treated
for the injuries. After two months he got discharge from the
hospital and thereafter, he lodged the complaint belatedly.
4. The claim petition was resisted by filing detail
written statement by Insurance Company including the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4414
involvement of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-
25/FB-30.
5. Tribunal frame necessary issues and after recording
the evidence of the parties, dismissed the claim petition.
Reasons for dismissal is discussed in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of
the impugned judgment which are culled out hereunder for
ready reference:
"9. As per the complaint Ex.P.1, it is clear that
complaint was given on 18.08.2008, even though the
incident has taken place on 20.06.2008. The vehicle
Number is mentioned in that complaint. Basing on that
complaint, police have filed F.I.R. and charge sheet
against the drive of the vehicle. As per the would
certificate Ex.P.7, he has stated to the Doctor that he
has sustained injuries in Road Traffic Accident and
same is also mentioned in Ex.P.7. Even though, the
petitioner has taken treatment from 20.06.2008 to
03.07.2008 in KIMS Hospital, Hubli, as inpatient, he
has not given complaint mentioning the vehicle
number. He has only stated that he has sustained
injuries in the said RTC. But, after the lapse of about 2
months i.e., 60 days, the complaint was given
mentioning the vehicle number. The petitioner/PW-1
also in the cross examination says that since he was
not in working condition, he has not given complaint in
KIMS Hospital and he has given complaint after 59
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4414
days. He says that he has not given complaint to the
police immediately on the date of accident.
10. When we consider the above said fact, it is
clear that the complainant has given complaint after
60 days after the accident even though he was
discharged from the KIMS hospital on 03.07.2008.
This clearly shows that the complainant who is the
petitioner of this case has filed complaint after lapse of
60 days by mentioning the vehicle number in order to
claim compensation. If he was aware of the vehicle
number and he had sustained injuries in the Road
Traffic Accident through the said vehicle, he would
have given complaint immediately when he was in the
hospital. If the petitioner is really has sustained
injuries due to the accident, the hospital authorities
would have intimated the same to the police and police
would have come there and taken his complaint in the
hospital itself even if he is admitted as an inpatient.
These facts clearly shows that complainant has filed
false complaint by involving the above said vehicle in
order to make false claim for compensation. Therefore,
I feel that petitioner has failed to prove issue No.1.
Hence, it is answered in the negative."
6. Shri. P. G. Chikkanargund, learned counsel for the
appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum contended that the Tribunal has sought for the
strict proof with regard to the accident and before the Motor
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4414
Accident Claims Tribunal, rule of strict proof is not permissible
and sought for allowing the appeal.
7. Per contra, Shri. S. K. Kayakamath, learned counsel
for respondent No.2 supported the impugned judgment by
contending that there is no MLC report sent by KIMS hospital,
as the claimant did not furnish atleast the make or the nature
of the vehicle when he narrated the history of the road traffic
accident and as an afterthought, the motor cycle came to be
implanted in the incident and sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
8. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
9. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
crystal clear that there is a belated complaint in respect of the
incident. Incident said to have occurred on 20.06.2008 and
complaint came to be filed only on 18.08.2008. Reason for the
belated complaint is that the injured was hospitalized and
therefore would not lodge the complaint immediately.
10. Whereas the wound certificate and patient
discharge card shows the date of discharge as 03.07.2008 and
not 18.08.2008.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4414
11. When the claimant was discharged on 03.07.2008,
complaint being lodged on 18.08.2008 giving a reason that he
was impatient for a period of 59 days cannot be countenanced
in law.
12. Further, as rightly contended on behalf of the
respondent-Insurance Company that the claimant failed to
mention atleast the make or nature of the vehicle that was
involved in the accident when he narrated the history has got
sufficient force in expressing the delay in lodging complaint.
Patient was very much conscious when he was admitted to the
KIMS Hospital, Hubballi, as could be seen from the discharge
certificate marked on behalf of the claimant.
13. When the very document marked on behalf of the
claimant shows that the claimant was conscious enough to
narrate the history of the accident, he should have mentioned
that he met the road traffic accident by a motorcyclist even
such a statement is note made.
14. Therefore, when there are no details as to what is
the nature of the vehicle that has been involved in the incident,
the KIMS hospital could not draw any MLC report to the
jurisdictional Police.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4414
15. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, in a
proper and pragmatic manner as referred to paragraph Nos.9
and 10 of the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has arrived
at a conclusion that the injuries sustained by the claimant is
not by involvement of the motor cycle bearing registration
No.KA-25/FB-30.
16. Accordingly, even after re-appreciation of the
material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum are hardly
sufficient to upset the well reasoned order of the Trial Court.
17. Hence, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is merit less and hereby
dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
