Back
2022 Supreme(Kar) 1076
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
T.G.Shivashankare Gowda, J.
Legal Manager Icici Lombard GIC Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
M.madappa - Respondent
M.F.A. No. 5032 of 2012 (MV-I)
Decided On : 16-09-2022
B.Pradeep, Advocate
The court emphasized the importance of considering medical evidence and the genuineness of the accident in assessing claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, leading to the dismissal of the claim based on contradictory evidence.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Appeal under Sec. 173(1) - Compensation awarded by Tribunal set aside - Evidence of accident contradicted by medical evidence - Claim dismissed
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/Insurer filed an appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which awarded compensation to the petitioner for injuries sustained in a road accident. The appellant contested the claim on the grounds of contradictory evidence and alleged fraud by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the medical evidence contradicted the petitioner's claim of being hit by a lorry, indicating that the injuries were sustained due to a skid and fall from his own vehicle. The court held that the Tribunal failed to consider the contradictory evidence and dismissed the claim, setting aside the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Issues: Contradictory evidence of the accident, Alleged fraud by the petitioner, Failure of the Tribunal to consider medical evidence
Ratio Decidendi: The medical evidence contradicted the petitioner's claim, and the Tribunal failed to consider this contradiction, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The claim was dismissed based on the lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's version of the accident.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal were set aside. The petitioner's claim under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was dismissed, and any statutory deposit made by the appellant was to be returned.
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal filed under Sec. 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) by the appellant/Insurer, challenging the judgment and award dtd. 29/2/2012 passed in M.V.C.No.667/2011 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity).
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows: The petitioner before the Tribunal (first respondent herein), on 14/10/2010 at about 2.00 p.m., was proceeding on his Kinetic Honda bearing registration No.KA-05/EX-3529 and when he reached near Vaddarapalya, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-32-5813 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Kinetic Honda of the petitioner, as a result of which, the petitioner suffered fracture of right ankle and he was admitted to Rajashekar hospital for treatment. Claiming compensation for the injuries he has sustained in the accident, he has filed a claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. Before the Tribunal, the claim was contested by the insurer alone. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner in order to prove his case examined himself and the treating Doctor as PW-1 and PW-2 and relied upon Exs.P1 to P10 and on behalf of the insurer, one witness was examined as RW-1 and relied upon Exs.R1 and R2.
4. By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1, 32, 400.00 with 6% interest per annum fastening liability on the insurer. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer is before this court.
5. The appeal is filed on the following grounds: The petitioner/claimant has reported before the hospital that he had a skid fall from the bike when he was admitted to Rajashekar Hospital, wherein before the Tribunal he has made a claim that a lorry bearing registration no.KA-32-5813 had hit him, as a result of which, he sustained injuries. The fact alleged is contrary to the evidence placed. The petitioner has made fraud, the Tribunal failed to notice the same, the Tribunal failed to note the settled principle of law that the noting of the Doctor should be looked into and mere filing of charge sheet is not a decisive factor. There is a delay of 10 days in filing the FIR, involvement of the lorry in question was not proved before the Tribunal and ignoring all these aspects, the Tribunal has passed the award, fastening liability against the Insurance Company which needs interference.
6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the claimant and owner of the vehicle, though served but unrepresented.
7. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer that soon after the accident, the petitioner was taken to Rajashekar Hospital where he has given a history of the accident on the very day that he skidded from his Kinetic Honda and fell on the road resulting in the injuries for which he was treated by the Rajashekar hospital. On 24/10/2010, lorry in question has been invented and a false complaint has been filed and thereby by misleading the Tribunal, claim has been filed and inspite of the evidence explaining the alleged accident as 'skid and fall from the Kinetic Honda', the defence is ignored, the evidence is not considered by the Tribunal and same is against the settled principles of law.
8. To support his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Ex.P1/FIR, Ex.P6/Discharge Summary and Ex.R2/MLC register extract and also spot sketch as Ex.P3. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, there is a reference in Ex.P6/Discharge Summary issued by Rajashekar hospital, which is relied upon by the petitioner, which refers as follows:
"This 50 yr old male was admitted with an alleged h/o RTA, skid and fell down from the bike on 14/10/2010 at around 3 pm and sustained injury to right knee, right ankle and left elbow."
9. Ex.R2 is the MLC Register extract issued by the Rajshekar Hospital wherein the history of the accident is referred to as follows:
"Al
