Karnataka High Court
Sri Malleshappa B vs M/S Icici Lombard General on 16 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:2050
MFA No. 10940 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 10940 OF 2013 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MALLESHAPPA B,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O B.C. BALAPPA,
PRESENT RESIDING AT 8TH "A" CROSS,
NEAR POST OFFICE, BAGALAGUNTE,
HESARGATTA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 073.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.Y. SREENIVASAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.89, S.V.R COMPLEX,
Digitally 2ND FLOOR, HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
signed by
BHARATHI S MADIVALA, BANGALORE - 560 068,
Location: REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
HIGH
COURT OF (OFFICER INCHARGE)
KARNATAKA
2. MR. SHIVANNA,
S/O PUTTANNA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT BHUPASANDRA VILLAGE AND POST,
SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 137.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR S, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:2050
MFA No. 10940 of 2013
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.07.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.7386/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SCJ &
XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The above appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the
judgment and award dated 24.07.2013 passed in MVC
No.7386/2011 by the Court of VIII Additional Small Causes
Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru
(hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), wherein the Tribunal has
dismissed the claim petition.
2. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of the
present appeal are that the appellant-claimant filed a claim
petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the
injuries sustained in the road traffic accident alleged to have
occurred on 13.07.2010 at about 9.30 a.m. The owner and
insurer of Motorcycle bearing No.KA-06-EE-4763 were arrayed
NC: 2024:KHC:2050
as respondents in the said claim proceedings. The insurer has
entered appearance and contested the said claim proceedings.
3. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and doctor as
PW-2. The representative of the insurer has been examined as
RW-1. The Tribunal by a judgment and award dated
24.07.2013 dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved the
present appeal is filed by the claimant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the findings
recorded by the Tribunal contends that the Tribunal erred in not
noticing the fact that the claimant has sustained injuries in the
accident in question and his brother was along with him, who
took him immediately to the hospital and thereafter, after delay
of four days, the complaint was lodged. That the said delay of 4
days was not fatal to the claim made by the claimant. That
having regard to the fact that the brother was taking steps to
get medical attention for the claimant and hence, the Tribunal
ought not to have dismissed the claim petition. He further
submits that the police authorities have investigated the case
and filed charge sheet against the offending vehicle and the
NC: 2024:KHC:2050
Tribunal erred in not believing the same and dismissing the
claim petition.
5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-
insurer justifies the award passed by the Tribunal.
6. The contentions put forth by both the learned counsels
have been considered and the material on record have been
perused including the records of the Tribunal. The question that
arises for consideration is "whether the judgment of the
Tribunal is erroneous and liable to be aside?"
7. It is forthcoming that the Tribunal upon an
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record
has noticed that as per Ex.P-2 (Wound certificate), it has been
recorded that the brother of the claimant had accompanied the
claimant when he was brought to the hospital for treatment of
the injuries sustained in the accident. The date of examination
as per the wound certificate (Ex.P-2) is mentioned as
13.07.2010 and that the complaint has been lodged on
16.07.2010 as it is forthcoming from the FIR (Ex.P-1) It is also
been noticed that as per the inpatient case sheet (Ex.P-7) it
has been mentioned in the entry made by the Doctor that the
NC: 2024:KHC:2050
injuries has been sustained due to fall down from the bike. The
said aspect of the matter has also been admitted in the cross-
examination of the Doctor (PW-2) which has also been
appreciated by the Tribunal.
8. Having regard to the fact that the documents on record
as was maintained by the hospital immediately upon the
claimant being taken to the hospital for treatment
demonstrating that the claimant sustained injuries due to fall
from a bike and there is no mention of any road traffic accident
wherein the involvement of the offending vehicle is
forthcoming, the tribunal has rightly noticed that the said
aspect of the matter was required to be explained by the
claimant.
9. It is alleged that the claimant was unconscious at the
time when he was taken to the hospital. In such an event, this
claimant ought to have examined his elder brother namely
Ranganathappa, who is alleged to have taken the claimant to
the hospital for the purpose of taking treatment immediately
after occurrence of the accident. Admittedly, the said brother
has not been examined in the present case.
NC: 2024:KHC:2050
10. Having regard to the aforementioned, the Tribunal
has rightly appreciated the material available on record and
dismissed the claim petition. Although the learned counsel for
the appellant has vehemently contended that the said finding is
erroneous, in view of the fact that the claimant has not
examined his brother who had taken the claimant to the
hospital for treatment immediately after the occurrence of the
accident and having regard to the noting made in the case
sheet of the hospital (Ex.P-7) and in view of the admission
made by the Doctor (PW-2) that the entry has been recorded
when the claimant was brought for treatment to the hospital,
and the said aspect of the matter not having been adequately
answered by the claimant, the appellant/claimant has failed in
demonstrating that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is in
any manner erroneous and contrary to any material available
on record and liable to be interfered by this Court in the
present appeal. Hence, the question framed for considerations
is answered in the negative.
NC: 2024:KHC:2050
11. In view of the aforementioned, the following order is
passed:
ORDER
i) The above appeal is dismissed.
ii) The judgment and award dated 24.07.2013 passed
in MVC No.7386/2011 by the Court of VIII
Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal Bengaluru is affirmed.
SD/-
JUDGE
VS
CT: BHK
