Karnataka High Court
Akram Pasha vs Mohammed Ajmil on 5 March, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9252
MFA No. 5545 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5545 OF 2013(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
AKRAM PASHA
S/O ABDUL KARIM,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/O 1ST CROSS, MIRZA MOHALLA,
HASSAN-573 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHARATH KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.C.CHETHAN., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHAMMED AJMIL
S/O MOHAMMED FAYAZ,
MAJOR, R/O DOOR NO.51,
HOSLINE ROAD,
HASSAN-573 201.
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N 2. THE MANAGER,
Location: HIGH BAJAJ ALLIANZE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA NO.363, SRIHARI COMPLEX,
SEETHA VILAS ROAD,
MYSORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
BY SRI. O.MAHESH., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 24.05.2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.402/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9252
MFA No. 5545 of 2013
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT II,
HASSAN.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.Sharath Kumar., learned counsel on behalf of
Sri.Chethan.B., for the appellant has appeared in person.
Sri.O.Mahesh., learned counsel for respondent No.2 has
appeared through video conferencing.
2. Emergent notice to the respondents was ordered on
07.02.2014. A perusal of the office note depicts that the first
respondent is served and unrepresented. He has neither
engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as
party in person.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
4. It is the case of the claimant that on the 19th day of
February 2017 at about 7:00 pm., he was walking on the left
side of the road in front of Hero Honda Showroom, near
NC: 2024:KHC:9252
Thanniruhalla Circle, Hassan City, at that time, the rider of a
motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-13-R-5634 drove the
same in a rash and negligent manner and hit him. Due to the
impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his right
leg, sustained fracture of right ankle and knee joint.
Immediately, he was admitted to Mangala Hospital, Hassan,
wherein surgery was conducted and implants were fixed and he
took treatment as an in-patient for twelve days and thereafter,
took treatment as an out-patient. Contending that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle, the
claimant filed claim petition seeking compensation.
In response to the notice, respondent No.1 remained
absent before the Tribunal and hence, he was placed ex-parte.
The second respondent insurance company appeared through
its counsel and filed written statement and denied the petition
averments. Among other grounds, it prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
issues. The parties led evidence and marked the documents.
The Tribunal vide Judgment and Award dated:24.05.2012
NC: 2024:KHC:9252
dismissed the petition. It is this Judgment that is called into
question in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the
memorandum of appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant in presenting his
arguments submits that the Judgment of the Tribunal is
contrary to the evidence on record and law. He argued by
saying that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim
petition. Counsel therefore, submits that the Judgment of the
Tribunal requires interference and hence, the appeal may be
allowed.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company justified the
Judgment and award of the Tribunal. He submits that the
appeal is devoid of merits and hence, the same may be
dismissed.
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective
parties and perused the appeal papers and the records with
utmost care.
6. The point that requires consideration is whether the
rejection of the claim petition is just and proper?
NC: 2024:KHC:9252
7. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. The issue revolves around the alleged accident.
According to the claimant, the accident occurred on the 19th
day of February 2007. It is pivotal to note that one Dr.Abdul
Basheer was examined as PW2 and marked the documents
Ex.P.7 to 11. In the evidence, he has stated that he examined
the claimant on 19.02.2007 in the hospital. He has deposed
that in the case sheet, they put the seal as MLC. Ex.P.10 is the
Case sheet. A perusal of the same reveals that there is no MLC
seal and there is no mention about requisition sent to police
regarding the accident. Needless to observe that the claimant
must establish that he met with an accident and immediately
after the accident, efforts are made to see that a complaint is
lodged to the jurisdictional police. In the absence of any
documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal is justified in
concluding that the claimant has failed to establish that he met
with an accident on the fatal day. I find no reasons to interfere
with the Judgment passed by the Tribunal.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal is devoid of
merits and it is liable to be rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC:9252
8. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
