Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
B. MANOHAR, J.
K.G. Naveenkumar - Appellant
Versus
J.P. Shivakumar & Others - Respondents
M.F.A. No. 2969 of 2012 (MV)
Decided On : 25-04-2017
Accident - Claim for Compensation - Failure to Prove Occurrence of Accident
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a claim petition seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. The tribunal dismissed the claim petition, stating that the claimant failed to prove the occurrence of the accident and the involvement of the insured vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained. The appellant's failure to produce documents and inconsistencies in the timeline of events led to the dismissal of the claim petition.
Issues: Failure to prove occurrence of accident, lack of evidence regarding injuries sustained, inconsistencies in the claimant's account of events
Ratio Decidendi: The tribunal's decision was based on the lack of evidence provided by the claimant to substantiate the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained. The court emphasized the importance of producing relevant documents and providing a consistent account of events.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the tribunal's decision to deny compensation due to the claimant's failure to prove the occurrence of the accident and the involvement of the insured vehicle.
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment and award dated 3-1-2012 made in MVC No.1253/2010 passed by the MACT at Davanagere, (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimant.
2. The appellant filed the claim petition contending that on 15-10-2010, when he was proceeding on his Hero Honda Twister motorcycle bearing Regn.No.KA-17-TR-6677 after attending his cable operating work at Harihar-Harapanahalli Road near Kallahalli Cross, the rider of another motorcycle bearing Regn.No.KA-17-V-7875 came from Thelagi in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motorcycle. Due to the impact, claimant fell down and sustained injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Harapanahalli and thereafter he has taken treatment at Suchethana Hospital, Davanagere as inpatient from 19-10-2010 to 25-10-2010. Prior to the accident, he was working as Cable Operator and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. Due to the accident he became permanently disabled to do the work as he was doing earlier. Hence, sought for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.
3. In pursuance of the notice issued to respondents, respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained unrepresented. Respondent No.3-Insurance company entered appearance and filed written statement denying entire averments made in the claim petition and disputed the occurrence of accident and involvement of the insured motorcycle bearing Regn.No.KA-17-V-7875.
4. After trial, the tribunal held that the claimant failed to prove the occurrence of the accident on 15-10-2010 and dismissed the claim petition. The Tribunal found that though the claimant claims that he has sustained injuries on 15-10-2010 and he had taken treatment, he has not produced any documents to substantiate the same. He has produced the documents issued by Suchethana Hospital and no documents is produced regarding the treatment taken at Govt. Hospital, After lapse of 6 days of accident i.e., on 21-10-2010, a complaint was lodged before the jurisdictional police. While lodging the complaint, vehicle number and type of the vehicle has not been mentioned. During the course of evidence, the claimant himself admitted that the accident occurred at 7 p.m. and he has not seen the offending vehicle, its number and type of vehicle. In order to claim compensation from the insurer, the insured vehicle has been set up and hence, the claimant is not entitled for compensation and accordingly, dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred this appeal.
5. I have heard Sri. R. Shashidhara, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. A.K. Bhat, learned counsel for the insurer and perused the judgment and award and oral and documentary evidence.
6. Though the claimant claims that he has sustained injury in the road traffic accident occurred on 15-10-2010 and has taken treatment at Govt. Hospital, no document has been produced to substantiate the same. However, he has produced the documents for having taken treatment at Suchethana Hospital from 19-10-2010 to 25-10-2010. The complaint has been lodged by the claimant on 21-10-2010 while he was in the hospital. Though, the claimant claims that immediately after the accident, he became unconscious and he was shifted to Govt. Hospital, no documents has been produced. If the claimant has sustained injuries, if treatment is not taken within 2 days there will be swelling. In the instant case, the claimant was inpatient from 19-10-2010 to 25-10-2010 and has lodged complaint on 21-10-2010. While lodging the complaint before the jurisdictional police, vehicle number and type of vehicle has not been mentioned. The specific case of the claimant is hit and run case. How the police could trace the vehicle involved in the accident is not mentioned Though the owner and driver of the vehicle is served wi
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
