Karnataka High Court
Rangaswamy vs Chandrashekar. J. N on 4 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36269
MFA No. 9758 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA NO. 9758 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
RANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O. RANGAIAH, R/O. THAVARADEVARU
KOPPALU VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA
TALUK, HASSAN DIST.-573 201 ...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. KAVITHA H C., ADV.)
AND:
1. CHANDRASHEKAR. J. N.
S/O. NAGARAJU
R/O. JANIVARA VILLAGE
CHANRAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201
2. THE MANAGER
H.D.F.C. EGRO, GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY
JENIVA HOUSE, #1110
Digitally signed by H.M.1ST FLOOR
PRAJWAL A CUNNING HAM ROAD
Location: HIGH COURT BENGALURU-52 ...RESPONDENTS
OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI.B.C.SHIVANNEGPWDA, ADV. FOR
SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R2;
R1 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08/06/2017,
PASSED IN MVC NO.238/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, HASSAN,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36269
MFA No. 9758 of 2017
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 is challenging the
order of dismissal of the claim petition filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the
parties shall be referred to as per their status before
the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are, on 09.08.2013 at
7.00 p.m. while the petitioner was walking on the left
side of the road, near Gavimatt of Kunigal bypass, a
Maruthi Car bearing Reg.No.KA-01/P-2245 hit against
him, due to which, he sustained injuries, treated at
Government Hospital, Kunigal, Sapthagiri Hospital,
Bengaluru. After taking treatment, he has approached
the Tribunal for grant of compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/-. Claim was opposed by both the
respondents. The Tribunal, after taking the evidence
NC: 2024:KHC:36269
and hearing both the parties by the impugned
judgment dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Heard the arguments of Smt.H.C.Kavitha,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.Pradeep,
learned counsel for the insurance company.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that, the petitioner has proved the
accident, injuries sustained by him and also the
treatment taken. For the reason of severe injuries, the
complaint was filed by his brother. The petitioner was
taken treatment at Government Hospital, Kunigal and
Hospital authorities have not intimated the occurrence
of the accident to the jurisdictional police. The brother
of the petitioner who was busy with attending the
injured-petitioner filed the complaint after 17 days.
The evidence on record is inspiring the confidence, but
the Tribunal has erroneously doubted the occurrence of
the accident, involvement of the vehicle in question
NC: 2024:KHC:36269
and dismissed the claim petition. It is also contended
that the Tribunal has not assessed the compensation
and she sought for allowing of the appeal and
assessment of compensation.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance
company has contended that the petitioner hails from
Hitthalahalli village of Kunigal taluk. In the claim
petition he has given address that he is residing at
Thavaradevaru Koppalu of Hassan taluk. The owner of
the vehicle is from Hassan so also the driver. The claim
is filed before the MACT, Hassan where the petitioner
has no connection. The accident took place on
09.08.2013, whereas the complaint was filed to the
Police on 26.08.2013. No evidence is placed from the
Government Hospital, Kunigal that there was an
accident involving the petitioner and the car.
7. It is further contended that the driver of the
car by name Tabrez, is a professionally involved in
many of the cases where claim petitions are filed
NC: 2024:KHC:36269
before the MACT, Somavarapete, Hassan,
Channarayapatna and he was professionally associated
in MACT claims. For this reason, the Tribunal has
rightly observed that a person hailing from Kunigal
taluk going to the Tribunal before the Hassan with a
vehicle belonging to the Hassan and also the driver.
Fraud is played for the sake of compensation and the
Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition and he
sought for imposition of exemplary cost on the
petitioner for manipulating the records in association
with the Police and he has supported the impugned
judgment.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on behalf of both parties and
perused the records.
9. The accident said to have taken place on
09.08.2013 at 8.15 p.m., immediately the petitioner
was taken to the Government Hospital, Kunigal. The
petitioner was examined at Sapthagiri Hospital,
NC: 2024:KHC:36269
Bengaluru at 9.00 p.m. where he was brought in a 108
Ambulance with the following history of "alleged RTA at
around 8.15 p.m. near Gavimatta bypass road hit and
run injury breath smells of alcohol." The above history
so furnished clearly points out that the petitioner was
under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident.
The brother of the petitioner who has attended him in
the Hospital, was not a eye witness to the accident.
10. In the Sapthagiri Hospital there is no
information furnished about the nature of the vehicle
whether it is a two wheeler or a four wheeler, small
vehicle or a big vehicle, whether it is a lorry or a bus.
All of a sudden on 26.08.2013, the brother of the
petitioner Chandrahasa went to the Kunigal Police
Station with a specific mention that the Omni car
bearing Reg.No.KA-01/P-2445 had hit against his
brother causing him the injuries. How he came to know
this particular vehicle caused the accident, there is no
explanation. The complaint itself speaks that soon after
NC: 2024:KHC:36269
the accident, the vehicle was not stopped and it was a
hit and run case, there were no eyewitness to the
accident. Before the Tribunal except producing the FIR,
chargesheet, IMV report and mahazar, no other
evidence is placed in proof of the accident.
11. According to the petitioner there are
eyewitnesses to the accident. No eyewitnesses are
examined except the self-serving testimony of the
petitioner and the doctor who has treated him. The
petitioner is required to explain the history so
mentioned in the Sapathagiri Hospital that he was
under the influence of alcohol. The Investigating
Officer who is investigated and filed charge sheet is
also not examined before the Tribunal. The vehicle in
question was seized and was subjected to motor
vehicle inspection on 13.11.2008 three months after
the accident. Unless the Investigating Officer comes
before the Tribunal and explain confirming the
involvement of the vehicle, the Tribunal has rightly
NC: 2024:KHC:36269
doubted the credibility of the accident in question for
the reason of a person from Kunigal Taluk goes before
Tribunal at Hassan suppressing truth of the accident.
12. The medical records clearly points out that
the petitioner has suffered injury in a Road Traffic
Accident involving a unknown vehicle and it was a hit
and run case. All of a sudden 17 days after the
accident, a vehicle from Hassan district come inside
the complaint, the owner and driver are from Hassan.
The address given by the petitioner before the Tribunal
at Hassan that he was a resident of Hassan taluk. It
clearly shows that the petitioner has suppressed the
truth and the Tribunal is right in doubting the accident
in question involving the vehicle proposed by him. The
petitioner cannot make a bonanza where a unknown
vehicle had caused the accident. The involvement of
the Maruthi car bearing Reg.No.KA-01/P2445 is not
established.
NC: 2024:KHC:36269
13. The prosecution papers which has generated
after 17 days of the accident create a cloud of doubts,
for the reason that the driver of the said car was
shown as one Tabrez who offer himself as a driver of
several vehicles in different accidents, goes before the
Police and faces the criminal trial, why a single person
goes to different Police station claiming that he was
driving the different vehicles at different point of time
demonstrates false implication. There is no force in the
arguments on behalf of the petitioner that accident was
genuine. Tribunal did not commit any error in
dismissing the claim petition.
14. Though it is argued on behalf of the insurance
company for imposition of exemplary cost, the
petitioner already suffered fracture involving unknown
vehicle, spent huge money towards treatment, it is not
proper to cause more damages to him, hence the order
of dismissal passed by the Tribunal is in accordance
with law and does not call for interference.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36269
15. In light of the above discussion, the appeal is
devoid of merits, in the result, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is dismissed;
(ii) The order of dismissal of the Tribunal is hereby
confirmed;
SD/-
(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA)
JUDGE
MKM
