Back
2021 Supreme(Kar) 286
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
KRISHNA S.DIXIT, PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, JJ.
Sri Veerabhadraiah Swamy, S/o Shivamurthy Swamy - Appellant
Vs.
N.Virupakshi @ Virupakshappa N., S/o late Anjinappa - Respondent
M.F.A. No.101901/2017 (MV)
Decided On : 23-06-2021
For the Appellant :Sri. Y.Lakshmikant Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri. S.V.Yaji, Adv.
Point of Law: Motor Accident – Compensation - The evil of perjury has assumed alarming proportions in cases depending on oral evidence and in order to deal with menace effectively, it is desirable for the Courts to use provision more effectively and frequently, than it is presently done
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Section 173(1) – Accident - Injuries – Compensation Awarded –Appeal - Claim for compensation is fraudulent - Accident allegedly happened on Road claimant whilst riding his motorcycle having been dashed down by the offending motorcycle sustained injuries to various parts of the body
Finding of the court:
A mere non-suiting of the unscrupulous litigants by throwing their case papers out through the court window would be militantly insufficient; something more drastic needs to be devised, so that message reaches out loudly to the unscrupulous class; in this case, we are made to spend more than an hour of valuable time in turning every page of the original Trial Court Record that runs into G56 pages, keeping other older cases at a bay; it is a sheer waste of huge public time & money occasioned by this perjured case of the appellant; this is not a happy thing to happen; we are of the considered view that this appeal should be dismissed with exemplary & penal cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
This appeal by the claimant calls in question the Judgment & Award dated 03.03.2017 entered by the MACTII, Ballari, whereby his claim in MVC No.64/2015 having been marginally favoured a compensation of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded with interest at the rate of 7% per annum; the appeal is founded on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.
2. After service of notice, the respondent-insurer having entered appearance through its panel counsel resists the appeal making submission in justification of the impugned award and the reasons on which it is structured inter alia contending that the very claim for compensation is fraudulent and therefore, this appeal deserves dismissal with exemplary costs; he further contends that since only a small sum of Rs.20,000/-is awarded by the MACT, no appeal is filed by the insurer, the game being not worth the candle.
3. Brief facts,
(a) The vehicular accident allegedly happened on 30.08.2014 at around 7.30 a.m. on Kudithini Ananthpur Road in Sandur Taluka of Ballari District; the claimant whilst riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-34/W-8978 having been dashed down by the offending motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-34/U-1161, sustained injuries to various parts of the body. His claim petition was stoutly opposed by the insurer by filing the Written Statement.
(b) To prove his case, claimant got examined himself as P.W.1; one Mr.H.S. Ananthamurthy was also examined as P.W.2 through Commission; Dr. Lakshmi Narayana, who had issued the Disability Certificate, was examined as P.W.3; from claimant’s side eighteen documents came to be produced & marked as Ex.P.1 to P.18; these inter alia comprised of Police Papers & Medical Reports, etc. From the side of insurer although none had entered the witness box, a copy of insurance policy came to be produced and marked as Ex.R1, presumably with consent.
(c) The MACT having considered the pleadings of parties and having weighed evidentiary worth of the material on record has entered the Judgment & Award that are put in challenge by the claimant on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the original TCR, we decline to grant indulgence in the matter and anguishingly impose heavy costs on the claimant for the following reasons:
(a) The accident allegedly happened on 30.08.2014 at 7.30 a.m. when the offending motorbike bearing Registration No.KA-34/U-1161 had dashed claimant’s motorcycle from behind and as a result thereof he suffered some injuries; all this may be taken to be true, of course with reluctance, since there is no formal challenge to this finding by the insurer by way of appeal or cross objection; had it been otherwise, we are not sure that we would have sustained this finding; be that as it may.
(b) Admittedly, claimant had the medical history of coronary problem when the accident happened; because of the alleged injuries caused by the accident, he was treated at the Government College & Hospital i.e., VIMS-Ballari, as an outpatient; the Wound Certificate, dated 30.08.2014, issued by the General Duty Medical Officer at Ex.P.5 specifically states that the “injuries are simple in nature”; this opinion was formed by the said Medical Officer after examination & on the basis of radiological tests, as is stated in the very Certificate itself; there being no reason to doubt the same, the said opinion has to be treated as the expert opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and therefore, carries a lot of weight, nothing emerging from the record for discounting it’s probative value.
(c) Later, the claimant moved to Narayana Institute of Cardiac Sciences at Bengaluru wherein he had admittedly undergone coronary related operation & treatment in a long hospitalization; in his affidavit-evidence, at para 2, 3 & 4, he has stated that the said accident resulted in “severe injuries over chest, head, forehead, nose, face, abdomen, hands & legs” and that all this happ
