Karnataka High Court
Mr Syed Aleem vs Sri Harry Karthik on 5 November, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44396
MFA No. 7178 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
MFA NO. 7178 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MR SYED ALEEM
S/O SYED NAWAB
OCC:SALESMAN AT GARMENT SHOP
R/AT NO.19, 7TH CROSS
SOMESHWARA NAGARA
1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 011 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SURESH M LATUR, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI HARRY KARTHIK
S/O HARRY, NO.58, 4TH CROSS
ANEPALYA, AUDUGODI POST
BANGALORE-560 030
Digitally signed
by KIRAN
KUMAR R 2. THE MANAGER
Location: HIGH ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
COURT OF INSURANCE CO.,LTD.
KARNATAKA 89, 2ND FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX
MADIVALA, KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE-560 068 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.P.S.JAGADISH, ADV. FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 8.8.2024,
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13/03/2018,
PASSED IN MVC NO.1439/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE XXI
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44396
MFA No. 7178 of 2018
ACMM & XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT,
BENGALURU (SCCH-25), DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The claimant is in appeal challenging the dismissal
order passed by the Tribunal.
2. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the
injuries suffered by the claimant was as a result of
an assault made on him and not as a result of a
motor vehicle accident. In order to come to said
conclusion, the Tribunal has relied upon Ex.P-7, the
wound certificate issued by the hospital i.e., Bowring
& Lady Curzon Hospital, in which it is clearly
recorded that the claimant was brought to hospital
with a history of alleged assault on him on
23.08.2015.
NC: 2024:KHC:44396
3. Learned counsel for the claimant, however, contends
that subsequently the claimant was taken to MG
Speciality Hospital, where it was correctly recorded
as history of an accident. He also seeks to place
reliance on the FIR which was registered on
01.09.2015 and also the fact that a chargesheet has
been laid against the driver of the offending vehicle.
4. The claimant himself produced Ex.P-10 which is a
record of the outpatient treatment given to the
claimant. The first entry dated 24.08.2015 on 12.12
a.m. itself indicates as 'history of alleged assault'.
On the reverse of this, another entry is made on the
same day about an history of a road traffic accident,
while riding a motorbike. There is thus a glaring
contradiction with regard to the cause of injuries.
5. The doctor, who has made the entries in Ex.P-10 and
who has issued Ex.P-7, has not been examined by
the claimant to explain this glaring contradiction. If
the OPD records categorically state that the claimant
NC: 2024:KHC:44396
was brought to the hospital with a history of alleged
assault, the subsequent theory that there was a
motor vehicle accident cannot be accepted. The
Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that
the very document produced by the claimant
indicated that he was a victim of assault. It has also
taken note of the fact that the Investigating Officer
was not able to satisfy as to on what basis he has
come to the conclusion that the injuries had occurred
due to an accident and that he had also admitted
regarding existence of wound certificate.
6. In my view, having regard to the assessment of the
evidence by the Tribunal, it is rather clear that the
claimant has suffered injuries only due to the assault
and not due to a motor vehicle accident. The
subsequent registration of FIR and the evidence
produced in support of this cannot be accepted, in
the light of the medical record which was earlier in
point of time and given by the claimant himself when
NC: 2024:KHC:44396
he was conscious. The appeal is, therefore,
dismissed.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
HNM
