Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramakrishna vs The Manager M/S Icici Lombard on 11 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1541
MFA No. 3925 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3925 OF 2013 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMAKRISHNA
@ RAMAKRISHNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O KARIYAPPA,
R/AT DODDAHULIKATTE,
KENCHANAHALLI POST, HULIYURDURGA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 123
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BHUSHANI KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGER,
M/S ICICI LOMBARD GEN. INS. CO. LTD.,
Digitally ICICI COMPLEX, NEXT TO CENTRAL
signed by
BHARATHI S SHOPPING COMPLEX, MARGATH ROAD,
Location: BENGALURU - 560 001.
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SRI. RAMESH,
S/O SUBHAVAIAH @ SHAMBUVAIAH,
R/A BANDHIGOWDANAPALYA,
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 123.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1541
MFA No. 3925 of 2013
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.1.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.2903/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, 28TH ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed by the claimant challenging
the judgment and award dated 23.01.2013 passed in M.V.C
No.2903/2011 by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru (SCCH-13) (hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal' for
short) where under, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim
petition filed by the claimant.
2. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of
the present appeal are that claiming compensation for the
injuries sustained in a road traffic accident alleged to have
occurred on 18.05.2011 at 9.30 a.m., the claimant filed a claim
petition before the Tribunal. The said claim proceedings was
contested by the owner and insurer of the Motorcycle bearing
No.KA 06 EF 4142 which is alleged to have been involved in the
accident in question. The claimant examined himself as PW-1,
NC: 2024:KHC:1541
a Doctor as PW-2 and a witness as PW-3. Exs.P-1 to P-14 have
been marked in evidence. The respondent No.1-insurer has
examined its official as RW-1 and doctor as RW-2 and got
marked Exs.R-1 to R-3.
3. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence on record, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim
petition. Being aggrieved, the claimant has filed the present
appeal.
4. It is forthcoming that the claim petition is filed by the
claimant alleging that an accident occurred on 18.05.2011
when he was walking on the left side of the road, at which time
the Motor cycle bearing No. KA 06 EF 4142 came and hit him
causing the accident in question. The first respondent-insurer in
its statement of objections has specifically denied the
occurrence of accident and also denied the case of the claimant
with regard to the date and manner of occurrence of the
accident. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and Doctor
as PW-2 and a witness as PW-3. The Doctor PW-2 has marked
the documents at Exs.P-10, 11 and 12.
NC: 2024:KHC:1541
5. The respondent No.1-insurer examined its officer as
RW-1 and a doctor as RW-2. It is the testimony of RW-2
Dr.Veeresh that he was working as the doctor in the
Government Hospital, Magadi when the claimant approached
him on 18.05.2011 stating that he was injured in the accident
which occurred on 17.05.2011 at 5.30 p.m., and that he was
accompanied by his friend Ravi and that the details of the
accident was entered by RW-2 in the wound certificate (Ex-R-1)
wherein, it has been entered that the claimant was hit by a bike
(Pulsar). It is the testimony of RW-2 that he had entered the
said details as per the statement made by the claimant to him
and that the MLC Register extract maintained by the
Government Hospital at Magadi was also marked as Ex.R-2. It
is the testimony of the RW-1 the records at Exs.R.1 and 2,
demonstrates that the alleged accident in which the claimant
has suffered injuries has occurred on 17.05.2011 and there is
no mention of any vehicle number and when the claimant came
to the hospital, he was accompanied by his friend Ravi, who is
the complainant.
6. In the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant, it is
stated that the accident is alleged to have occurred on
NC: 2024:KHC:1541
18.05.2011 when he was hit by a Motorbike bearing No.KA 06
EF 4142. PW-3 has been examined as a witness to the
accident. However, it is forthcoming from his testimony that he
has not witnessed the accident and in the cross-examination of
PW-3, he has stated that after hearing the news he went to the
spot and shifted the injured to the hospital and has given the
police complaint.
7. The documents at Exs.R-1 and R-2 clearly
demonstrates that the claimant had taken treatment at the
Government Hospital Magadi. However, it is forthcoming that
subsequently, only with a view to implicate the insured bike,
the complainant has lodged police complaint as per Ex.P1 and
further the claimant has gone to the Victoria Hospital for
treatment. The documents available on record clearly creates a
doubt as to the case put forth by the claimant in the claim
petition.
8. The Tribunal has in detail examined the relevant
factual aspect of the matter and has noticed the inconsistency
in the case of the claimant, having regard to the documents
produced by the claimant at Exs.P.1 to P.7 and the documents
NC: 2024:KHC:1541
produced on behalf of respondents at Exs.R.1 to R.3. The
Tribunal has also noticed the relevant judgments and has
noticed that the friend of the claimant one Sri. Ravi, who has
taken the claimant for treatment to the Government Hospital,
Magadi has not been examined. The Tribunal after a detail
appreciation of the relevant material on record has categorically
noticed that there is an anomaly in the case put forth by the
claimant having regard to the documents produced at Exs.R-1
to R-3 and the testimony of RW-2 and the said anomaly ought
to have been explained by the claimant. The claimant not
having explained the anomaly, the Tribunal has recorded a
finding that the claimant has not suffered injuries in the
manner as set out in the claim petition.
9. The appellant has failed in demonstrating that the
finding recorded by the Tribunal is in any manner erroneous
and liable to be interfered by this Court in the present appeal.
Upon re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on
record, it is clear and forthcoming that the finding recorded by
the Tribunal is just and proper and no interference in the same
is warranted.
NC: 2024:KHC:1541
10. In view of the aforementioned, the appeal is
dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VS
CT: BHK
