Karnataka High Court
Vinod K vs Jakeer Hussain Medleri on 31 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30561
MFA No. 5694 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5694 OF 2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
VINOD K.,
S/O NINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT AMARAVATHY VILLAGE,
HARIHAR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE-577 601.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAKASH H C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. JAKEER HUSAIN MEDLERI,
S/O ABDUL KARIM SAB,
TIPPU NAGAR,
RATTI HALLI VILLAGE,
Digitally signed by
PRAJWAL A HEREKERUR TALUK,
Location: HIGH COURT HAVERI-560 008.
OF KARNATAKA
2. SHANAWAJ AWAJ M MASUR
S/O MEHABOOB SAB,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O RATTIHALLI VILLAGE,
HIEREKERUR TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT-560 008.
3. THE MANAGER,
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30561
MFA No. 5694 of 2013
MOKTALI BUILDING,
KSRTC BUS STAND,
HAVERI-581 110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SREEKANTA RAO L., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 4.5.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.148/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HARIHAR, DISMISSING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the petitioner has challenged the
order of dismissal of the claim petition in MVC
No.148/2010 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and
Additional MACT, Harihar, by judgment dated 04.05.2013.
('the Tribunal' for short).
2. The appellant was the petitioner and respondents
were the respondents before the Tribunal. For the sake of
NC: 2024:KHC:30561
convenience, the rank of the parties shall be referred to as
per their status before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are, on 16.12.2009 at
about 3.30 p.m., near old P.B.Road of Harihar infront of
Nandi Petrol Bunk, while the petitioner was riding the TVS
Scooty bearing registration No.KA-17 X 9316 as pillion
rider, a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No.
KA-17 Q 8554 came in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the Scooty. Due to which, the petitioner
has sustained the injuries. After taking treatment at
Shri. Basveshwara Health Center, Davanagere, the
petitioner has filed the claim petition under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/-, claim was opposed by the respondent
No.3-insurance company. The tribunal by taking evidence
and on hearing both the parties by impugned judgment
dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner
is before this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:30561
4. Heard the arguments of Sri. Prakash H.C., learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sreekanta Rao L.,
learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.3-insurance
company.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the FIR was filed within 24 hours indicating
the vehicle number as KA-27-Q-8564. The vehicle involved
in the accident was actually bearing registration
No.KA-27-Q-8554 and for this reason, the Investigating
Officer has seized the said vehicle and subjected the said
vehicle for inspection and after investigation, charge sheet
was filed. In the charge sheet also there is a mistake in
mentioning the vehicle number and for this reason, the
petitioner has examined the Investigating Officer, who has
stated before the tribunal that the mistake in the
registration number of the vehicle mentioned in the charge
sheet is due to over sight. Hence, the petitioner has placed
the evidence in proof of involvement of vehicle bearing
NC: 2024:KHC:30561
No.KA-27-Q-8554 in the accident in question but for the
discrepancy in the FIR and the charge sheet, the tribunal
has erroneously taken that the registration number of the
vehicle as KA-27-Q-8564 and dismissed the claim petition
and he sought for assessment of the compensation.
6. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent
No.3-insurance company has contended that the accident
involving the pulsar motorcycle bearing No.KA-27-Q-8564
as mentioned in the complaint, as well as in the charge
sheet. The claim is made against the Hero Honda
motorcycle and not against the pulsar motorcycle. By
tampering the statement, the registration number of the
vehicle has been changed from KA-27-Q-8564 to KA-27-
Q-8554. Tribunal has rightly observed that the vehicle
involved in the accident was Pulsar bearing registration
No.KA-27-Q-8564 whereas, the claim is made against the
Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27-Q-
8554 and has rightly dismissed the claim petition and he
supported the impugned judgment.
NC: 2024:KHC:30561
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the
parties and perused the material on record.
8. It is the specific case of the petitioner that there
was an accident on 16.12.2009 at about 3.30 p.m
involving TVS scooty and a motorcycle. According to the
petitioner, Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration
No. KA-27-Q-8554 is the offending vehicle. In support of
his claim, he has produced 13 documents to the
investigation. Among them, Ex.P-5 is the statement of the
petitioner given in the hospital between 2.30 to 3.00 p.m.,
on 17.12.2009, wherein he has stated that the offending
vehicle as Pulsar bike bearing No.KA-27-Q-8564.
Accordingly, FIR was registered against the rider of the
said motorcycle.
9. Ex.P-3 is the charge sheet which points out that
one Jakeer Husain Medleri was the rider of the said bike
and it is pertinent to note that in the charge sheet, the
NC: 2024:KHC:30561
registration number of the motorcycle is mentioned as
KA-27-Q-8564. Ex.P-4- Mahazar and also the statement of
one Jagadish, who is the rider of the TVS scooty points out
that the registration number of the motorcycle is
KA-27-Q-8554. In the mahazar, the description of the
motorcycle is not explained but only the description is
mentioned as TVS scooty. The statement of the rider of
the TVS scooty as per Ex.P-5 clearly shows that the
description of the motorcycle as pulsar bike. The pulsar
bike is a different make and model and a Hero Honda is
also a different make and model, they cannot be identical
motorcycles. Ex.P-7-MVI report points out that the make
of the motorcycle is Hero Honda Glamour.
PW-3 is the Investigating Officer, who explains the
investigation conducted at the time of filing of the charge
sheet. He offers an explanation in the witness box that by
over sight he has filed the charge sheet against the
motorcycle bearing No.KA-27-Q-8564 instead of
KA-27-Q-8554.
NC: 2024:KHC:30561
10. In order to accept such an explanation, he has to
give proper explanation but in the course of cross
examination it is elicited that he has not filed any request
to the court for change of registration number of the
motorcycle after filing of the charge sheet. In the charge
sheet, the accident was committed by the pulsar bike,
whereas, the charge sheet is filed against the Hero Honda
motorcycle. The Investigating Officer has committed an
error but the truth remained unsolved till the matter is
taken up for trial before the tribunal. Hence, the petitioner
though suffered fracture, he is entitled to claim
compensation but he has made a wrong claim against the
Hero Honda motorcycle instead of Pulsar bike.
11. I have carefully perused the impugned judgment.
The tribunal has taken all these aspects into consideration
and came to the conclusion that Hero Honda Glamour
motorcycle has not caused the accident and the petitioner
has to go against the Pulsar bike. I do not find any error or
NC: 2024:KHC:30561
illegality in the finding recorded by the tribunal. Appeal is
devoid of the merits. In the result, the following:-
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA)
JUDGE
VS
