Karnataka High Court
Prakash vs Suryakanth And Anr on 31 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3486-DB
MFA No. 200577 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200577 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
PRAKASH
S/O GUNDAPPA KHANDI,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & SUB CONTRACTOR,
NOW NIL R/O HALLIKHED (K) WADI,
TQ: HUMNABAD, DISTRICT: BIDAR,
NOW AT H.NO.2-219 JAGATH,
KALABURAGI-585101.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed (BY SRI.BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
by VARSHA N
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. SURYAKANTH
S/O MANIKAPPA SADLAPURE,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF HERO-HONDA,
R/O HALLIKHED (K) WADI,
TQ: HUMNABAD,
DISTRICT: BIDAR-584101.
2. THE MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3486-DB
MFA No. 200577 of 2018
1ST FLOOR, BILGUNDI COMPLEX,
OPP: MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
KALABURAGI-585101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MS.SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC
NO.608/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MACT AT KALABURAGI. ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.12.2017
PASSED IN M.V.C NO.608/2013 BY THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT AT KALABURAGI AND AWARD THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.45,50,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST. .
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY RAJESH RAI K J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated 06.12.2017 passed in MVC No.608/2013 by
the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi
wherein the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by
the claimant/appellant with cost.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3486-DB
3. The facts arise for consideration which are
borne out from the pleadings are as under:
On 18.09.2012 at about 7.30 p.m., at Chitguppa-
Udbal Road near bridge, the petitioner as a pillion rider
was proceeding on a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-39/J-9829 which was being ridden by
rider Abhimanyu in a high speed and rash and negligent
manner, due to which the motorcycle slipped while
turning. As a result, the motorcycle fell down in a ditch,
due to the same the petitioner sustained injuries to his
spine and left leg. In the meantime, the rider of the
motorcycle ran away from the spot. The petitioner was
shifted to Omerga Hospital for treatment and thereafter,
the petitioner was shifted to Ganga Hospital, Solapur,
where he was treated as inpatient from 19.09.2012 to
02.10.2012 for the spine disc prolapsed of C5-C6 and was
discharged on 02.10.2012. In this regard, the Chitguppa
police registered a case in crime No.128/2012 against the
rider of the motorcycle. Hence, the petitioner filed the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3486-DB
claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act
claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the
said accident.
4. Pursuant to the notice, respondent No.2 being
the insurer of the offending vehicle appeared before the
Tribunal and filed objections by denying the averments
made in the claim petition. However, respondent No.1
remained absent inspite of service of notice and therefore,
he was placed exparte.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Tribunal framed the relevant issues for consideration. In
order to prove the case before the Tribunal, the petitioner
examined himself as PW.1 so also examined 3 other
witnesses on his behalf as PWs.2 to 4 and got marked 26
documents as Exs.P1 to P26. The officer of the Insurance
Company was examined as RW.1, however, not marked
any document.
6. After assessment of the oral and documentary
evidence placed before it, the Tribunal dismissed the claim
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3486-DB
petition filed by the petitioner with cost. Challenge to the
same is lis before this Court.
7. Heard Sri.Babu H.Metagudda, learned counsel
for the appellant and Ms.Sangeeta Bhadrashetty, learned
counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
8. It is the primary contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal grossly erred
by not considering the evidence available on record and
dismissed the claim petition. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4
clearly established the accident in question, so also the
injuries sustained by PW.1 in the said accident.
Nevertheless, the petitioner produced the documents
Ex.P1 i.e., the copy of the FIR, Ex.P2, complaint and also
Ex.P8 face sheet of the charge sheet which clearly disclose
that the petitioner had sustained injuries in an accident
while he was traveling on a motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-39/J-9829 as a pillion rider and due to
the negligent riding of the rider of the said motorcycle, the
petitioner sustained such grievous injuries. The
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3486-DB
jurisdictional police laid the charge sheet as per Ex.P8 for
the offences under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC and
Section 134(b) and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the
rider of the motorcycle. Further, the documents like the
spot panchanama (Ex.P4), seizure panchanama (Ex.P5)
clearly reveal that on relevant date and time, the accident
has caused. Inspite of such clinching material, the Tribunal
failed to consider the same. The learned counsel would
further contend that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the
documents like Medico Legal Certificate as per Ex.P6 and
the Discharge Summary as per Ex.P10 which clearly depict
that the petitioner sustained thigh burn injury due to the
accident. Inspite of that the Tribunal relied the stray
sentence mentioned in the Medico Legal Certificate that
the 'accident caused due to fall from bicycle from 15 ft.
height', so also relying the admission in the cross-
examination of PW.1 that he failed to produce any
admission card for having admitted at Ganga Hospital,
Solapur. According to the learned counsel, though there is
delay of 01 month 04 days in lodging the complaint, the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3486-DB
said delay is caused due to hospitalization of the petitioner
and the petitioner was under the impression that once the
Medico Legal Case is registered, then it is the bounden
duty of the police to register FIR. As such, the said delay
in filing complaint is caused and the same would not have
been considered by the Tribunal to reject the claim
petition.
9. In order to buttress his arguments, learned
counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Saroj and Others vs. Het Lal and Others
reported in (2011) KANT, MAC 247 (SC) and the
judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Sumangala vs. Virupakshi and Others reported in
2012 Kant. MAC 61(Kant.). Accordingly, the learned
counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the appeal by
setting aside the judgment passed by the Tribunal.
10. Refuting the above submission made by the
learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3486-DB
the Insurance Company would vehemently contend that
the Tribunal after meticulously considering the evidence
and documents placed before it, passed the well reasoned
judgment, which does not call for any interference. She
would further contend that there is an inordinate delay of
01 month 04 days in filing the complaint and absolutely
there is no such explanation forthcoming for such
inordinate delay. She would further contend that Ex.P6
Medico Legal Certificate clearly depicts that the accident
caused due to fall from a bicycle from 15 ft. height. The
said Ex.P6 discloses the date of accident as 18.09.2012 at
about 7.30 p.m., the said document is marked by the
petitioner himself in his evidence. Later, after 01 month 04
days, a false complaint has been lodged by the petitioner
colluding with the jurisdictional police and FIR came to be
registered and charge sheet also laid against the
respondent No.1, who was the owner of the motorcycle.
Hence, the Tribunal after considering all those aspects
rightly rejected the claim petition on the ground that the
petitioner failed to prove that he has sustained injuries in
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3486-DB
the road traffic accident. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss
the appeal by confirming the judgment passed by the
Tribunal.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties so also having perused the documents
made available before us, the only point that would arise
for our consideration is:
Whether the judgment and award dated
06.12.2017 passed in MVC No.608/2013 by
the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT,
Kalaburagi suffers from any perversity and
calls for interference by this Court?
12. As could be seen from the records, it is the case
of the petitioner that, the accident was caused on
18.09.2012 at about 7.30 p.m, at Chitguppa circle while
he was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-39/J-9829 as a pillion rider which was ridden by
one Abhimanyu. Due to the accident, initially, he was
admitted at Omerga Hospital and thereafter, shifted at
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3486-DB
Ganga Hospital, Solapur for further treatment. Admittedly,
the petitioner failed to produce any documents for having
admitted at Omerga Hospital on the date of accident.
Though the petitioner produced Ex.P6 i.e., the Medico
Legal Certificate issued by Ganga Hospital, Solapur, the
same depicts that the 'accident caused due to fall from
bicycle from 15 ft. height'. According to the petitioner,
subsequently a discharge summary has been issued by the
said hospital as per Ex.P10 which discloses that the
petitioner was admitted in the said hospital on 19.09.2012
and discharged on 02.10.2012. No such complaint has
been lodged either by the petitioner or his family members
before the police during that period i.e., for a period of 15
days. Even though the petitioner got discharged on
02.10.2012, he failed to lodge any complaint till
22.10.2012 i.e., for another period of 20 days. This
inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and also the
information provided by the petitioner while his admission
in the hospital as per Ex.P6 creates a doubt in the mind of
this Court about the occurrence of the accident as claimed
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3486-DB
by the petitioner. Registering of FIR and the entire
investigation conducted after 01 month 04 days i.e, from
22.10.2012 and the motor vehicles accident report was
also issued on 02.11.2012 by the concerned authority
which also depicts the damages to headlight dome cover
and front left side rear view mirror. In such circumstance,
mere registering of FIR and filing of charge sheet after
lapse of considerable period itself, cannot be accepted as a
gospel truth to allow the claim petition. Though, the
learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that
PWs.1 to 4 in their evidence categorically deposed about
the manner in which the accident caused and the injury
sustained by the petitioner, however, on careful perusal of
their evidence, PW.1 in his cross-examination admitted
that he did not produce any document like admission card
for having admitted at Ganga Hospital, Solapur. Further,
he also failed to produce any document for having
admitted initially at Omerga Hospital for first aid
treatment. Further, according to him, the reason for delay
in lodging the complaint is that he was under the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3486-DB
impression that Medico Legal Case was registered since he
was admitted in the hospital. The doctor who was
examined as PW.4 on behalf of petitioner, in his cross-
examination categorically admitted that while admitting
the injured to the hospital the concerned doctor will
enquire about the cause for the injuries and as per the say
of injured and the person who accompanied the injured,
the doctor will record the history of injury. He also
admitted that there is difference between the bicycle and
motorcycle and there is a mention of bicycle in Ex.P6 and
the same was not brought to the notice of police. PW.4
neither treated PW.1 nor issued Ex.P6. According to him
one Dr.Prabhakar, treated PW.1 in the hospital. The said
doctor was not examined before the Court. In such
circumstance, the petitioner failed to substantiate his case
by placing cogent evidence and materials that he
sustained injuries in the road traffic accident by fall from a
motorcycle. We are aware of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court and the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3486-DB
that mere delay in lodging a complaint is not a ground to
reject the claim petition in motor vehicle accident cases.
Nevertheless, when there is a clear doubt in respect of
very occurrence of the accident itself and the manner in
which it is narrated in the claim petition, the delay aspect
has to be considered coupled with the above
circumstances in order to restrain the false claims. The
citations relied by the petitioner supra does not attract to
the facts and circumstances of this case for the reason
that in those cases, the claim petition was dismissed only
on the basis of discrepancies with regard to registration
number of the vehicles and final report. However, in the
case on hand, the very occurrence of accident itself is in
doubt coupled with inordinate delay in lodging the
complaint and the admission of the petitioner and
witnesses in their evidence about the history of accident
and injury, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly
rejected the claim petition filed by the petitioner.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3486-DB
13. In that view of the matter, we answer the point
raised above in the negative and proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
VNR
CT;BN
