SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 900

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY
North West Karnataka Rd. Transport Corp.
Versus
Gourabai & Others
Civil Appeal No. 3171 of 2009
Decided on : 01-05-2009

Appearing Advocates:
For the Appellants:R.S. Hedge, P.P. Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mallikarjun S. Mycar, Ms. E.R. Sumathy, Advocates.

Headnote:Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 147 - Motor accident – Proof of - Medical evidence not supporting case of accident - Showing that the deceased suffered injury due to fall in his own house - Brother of the deceased who took deseased to hospital stated that he did not know what was written in the document – Only his signatures were taken on it - Doctor not expected to take signatures on a paper mentioning something incorrect – Case of accident not proved.

       [Paras 3 and 4]

Judgment :

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.

Heard.

Leave granted.

Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. Challenge in the said appeal was to an award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. VII, Bijapur (in short MACT). An award of Rs. 2,59,400/- was made. The main contention of the appellant before the MACT as well as before the High Court was that the deceased did not sustain any injury in any accident involving the bus of the corporation. Reference was made to the evidence of the doctor, who had admitted the deceased to the hospital, that the deceased had suffered head injury due to fall from the height of 8 to 10 feet of his own house. Though this was specifically stated in the written statement, the MACT and the High Court brushed aside the same stating that there was indirect admission about the deceased having sustained injury in vehicular accident. The effect of the evidence of the doctor and exhibit R-1 does not appear to have been looked into by the MACT and the High Court. MACT did not place reliance on the document R-1 on the ground that the brother of the injured stated that he did not know what was written in the document and his signature was taken on one page. This conclusion over looks from the fact that a doctor will not take a signature on a piece of paper mentioning something which is not correct. Exhibit R-1 establishes beyond the shadow of doubt that the injuries sustained were not on account of any vehicular accident. That being so, the MACT and the High Court were not justified in making any award. The order of the MACT and High Court stands set aside.

The appeal is accordingly, allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top