Karnataka High Court
Nagappa vs Manvinderapal Singh And Ors on 21 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8715
MFA No. 202492 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202492 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
NAGAPPA S/O DEVRAO
AGE: 59 YRS OCC: UNEMPLOYED
R/O. BORAL, AURAD TALUKA-585326
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANVINDERAPAL SINGH
S/O BHAGWANSINGH
AGE:MAJOR OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. MALEGAON DIST: MANDED IN M.S.
Digitally signed by OWNER OF LORRY NO.MH-26H-5409
RENUKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE NG COMPLEX
1ST FLOOR, OPP.MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA
GULBARGA-585103 (VIDE POLICY NO.
182001/31/2009/500 VALID
FROM:3.5.2008 TO 2.5.2009)
3. SRI. SURYAKANTH S/O GANPATHI
AGE:MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O H.NO. 5-81, ALMAJE COLONY
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8715
MFA No. 202492 of 2018
AURAD-B TQ-585326
(OWNER OF TRACTOR NO.KA-38/4843)
4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
DIVISION OF FICE, NG COMPLEX
OPP.MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA
GULBARGA-585103
VIDE POLICY NO. 422900/31/2008/23668/
VALIDE 29.3.2008 TO 28.3.2009
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R4;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
14.03.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
AURAD-B IN MVE NO.67/2014 AND PLEASED TO ALLOW THE
CLAIM PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
Captioned appeal is by the claimant questioning the
judgment rendered by the Tribunal in MVC No.67/2014,
which is dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that
claimant has failed to substantiate the nexus between
injuries and the death caused subsequently.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8715
2. One Shanker, who was working as a labour on a
tipper bearing registration No.KA-38/4843 after loading
concrete machine returned in the offending vehicle. The
driver of the said tipper drove the Vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against disease and other
labours from the hind side, while they were alighting from
the tipper and caused the accident and hence, filed a claim
petition in MVC No.157/2009. In the said claim petition,
deceased Shanker claimed that he has suffered fracture to
the 2nd, 4th and 5th metatarsal shaft of great toe of right
foot and hence, claimed that he has suffered disability.
The accident is dated 16.11.2008. Pending consideration
of the claim petition, said Shanker died on 25.07.07.2009.
The claim petition, which was one for having sustained
injuries in a road traffic accident, was withdrawn.
3. The present claimant, who is the brother of
deceased has filed a fresh claim petition claiming
compensation of Rs.15,70,000/- on account of death of
deceased Shanker. The claimant contend that his brother
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8715
Shanker died on account of injuries sustained to the great
toe of right foot.
4. The Tribunal, after a meticulous examination of
the oral and documentary evidence, particularly the
medical evidence, has refused to accept Ex.P11,a
certificate issued by PW2, a Medical Officer at Bidar
Hospital. A thorough analysis of PW2's evidence during
cross-examination revealed that PW2 had not personally
treated the deceased, Shanker. Based on these
observations, the Tribunal concluded that Ex.P11 lacked
credibility and evidentiary value. Consequently, the
Tribunal found that the claimant had failed to establish
that the injuries sustained by Shanker in the alleged road
traffic accident were the cause of his death. The claim
petition was dismissed on this ground.
5. The appellant's counsel attempted to persuade
this Court to remand the case, contending that the
claimant deserved another opportunity to provide
additional evidence to establish the cause of death.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8715
However, this plea was strongly countered by the
respondent's counsel, representing the insurance
company. The respondent's counsel highlighted the
fraudulent nature of the claim, referencing the wound
certificate and the discharge card. Hey contended that,
given the minor nature of the injuries sustained and the
lack of corroborative medical evidence, there was no basis
to substantiate that the injuries caused Shanker's death. It
was argued that no indulgence was warranted from this
Court in such circumstances. Upon hearing the arguments
and meticulously examining the Trial Court records,
particularly the medical evidence, this Court finds no
compelling reason to disturb the findings of the Tribunal.
6. The deceased, Shanker, had filed a claim
petition for a fracture to his right great toe, which medical
records confirm was treated with closed reduction and 'K'
wiring. He was discharged from the Government Hospital
on 24.11.2008, as per the discharge card marked at
Ex.P15. The claimant has heavily relied on Ex.P11, a
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8715
certificate issued by PW2, to establish that the injuries led
to complications causing Shanker's death.
7. However, a detailed examination of Ex.P11
shows that this certificate appears to have been fabricated
for the purpose of claiming compensation. PW2, a medical
officer at Bidar Hospital, issued the certificate, stating that
Shanker's condition became critical due to cellulitis and
toxicity following the road traffic accident. This assertion
lacks substantiation, as PW2 did not treat Shanker for
these alleged complications. This conduct by PW2,
disregarding professional ethics, is troubling and highlights
a concerning trend of collusion between claimants and
certain medical practitioners to fabricate evidence for
fraudulent claims.
8. In cross-examination, PW2 admitted that he
was not Shanker's treating doctor and that Shanker's
treatment for the fractured toe was limited to a closed
reduction and 'K' wiring. The claimant failed to produce a
postmortem report, which is the most critical document to
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8715
establish a causal link between the injuries and the death.
Without such evidence, the claim lacks a factual
foundation. Moreover, it is medically improbable that a toe
fracture would lead to death. The absence of any medical
records to substantiate a direct connection between the
injury and the death further undermines the claim's
credibility.
9. The claimant has produced additional
documents, purportedly to demonstrate that PW2, despite
having superannuated, was engaged on an honorary basis
at Bidar Hospital. However, these documents do not alter
the substance of the case. They fail to establish any
meaningful nexus between the injury sustained by
Shanker a fractured toe and his subsequent death. The
evidence remains insufficient to substantiate that the
injury led to complications resulting in death.
Consequently, the claimant's request for a remand to allow
for additional evidence lacks merit and appears to be an
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8715
attempt to delay proceedings and create an illusion of
credibility for a baseless claim.
10. This case highlights a concerning and growing
trend where claimants present fabricated evidence, often
in collusion with unethical medical professionals, to
support fraudulent claims. Such practices severely
undermine the integrity of genuine claims and place an
undue burden on the judicial system, which must allocate
resources to adjudicate such dubious petitions.
11. Medical professionals occupy a position of trust
in society, and their role is critical in providing impartial
and reliable evidence. However, the conduct of PW2 in this
case tarnishes that trust. PW2, a 73-year-old retired
medical officer, issued a certificate marked as Exhibit P11,
purporting that Shanker's health had deteriorated due to
complications from the road traffic accident. This
certificate, which lacks proper official validation such as a
hospital seal or reference number, appears to be
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8715
fabricated solely to lend weight to a fraudulent
compensation claim.
12. The actions of PW2 not only reflect a breach of
professional ethics but also expose a troubling collusion
aimed at defrauding the insurance system. The issuance of
such a certificate, despite PW2 having no role in treating
the deceased or being involved in his medical care,
indicates a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court. This
undermines the sanctity of the medical profession and
erodes public confidence in the judicial process. Courts
must remain vigilant against such unethical practices and
ensure that fraudulent claims are exposed and deterred
through stringent scrutiny and appropriate consequences.
13. This Court consistently discourages attempts by
claimants to fabricate stories to extract compensation, as
seen in this case. Shanker was appropriately treated for a
minor injury, a fractured toe, and was discharged in stable
condition on 24.11.2008. His death occurred eight months
later, on 25.07.2009. The significant time gap, combined
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8715
with the lack of credible medical evidence linking the
injury to his death, renders the claim dubious. The
Tribunal's detailed examination of Exhibit P11's
authenticity further strengthens the conclusion that it was
manufactured to support a false claim.
14. In light of the above analysis, this Court
concurs with the Tribunal's findings. The claim petition
appears to be an attempt by the claimant, Shanker's elder
brother, to exploit his death for financial gain. This is a
disservice to the judicial process and to genuine victims
seeking compensation. The evidence presented is
insufficient to demonstrate any connection between the
injuries sustained in the road accident and Shanker's
death. The grounds raised in the appeal and the additional
evidence fail to inspire confidence or provide a basis for
interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack
of merit.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
SRT
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14, CT-SW
