In cases of motor vehicle accidents, the burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish the involvement of the vehicle, and collusion can negate liability for insurance coverage.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.3. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 is absent.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dtd. 17/7/2015, passed in M.V.C.No.40/2012, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Member, Additional MACT, Harihara ('the Tribunal' for short).

3. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that the accident was occurred on 13/11/2011 when the claimant was going to his house along with his relative at Halladakere cross abutting Shimoga road and at that time, respondent No.1 who was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner dashed against him, as a result, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries to his left leg and immediately he was taken to Government Hospital at Harihara and thereafter he was shifted to a private clinic at Davanagere and he took treatment in the hospital. In order to substantiate his claim he examined himself as P.W.1 and examined the doctor as P.W.2. On the other hand, the respondent examined one witness as R.W.1, who is the rider of the motorcycle and got marked the documents at Exs.R.1 and 2.

4. The main contention of the Insurance Company is that the vehicle was implicated after one month two days of the accident and no documents are placed with regard to the involvement of the vehicle in the accident and afterthought implicated the vehicle.

5. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, admittedly the accident was taken place on 13/11/2011 and complaint was given on 15/12/2011. Though he claims that he took the treatment in different hospitals, except producing Exs.P.7 and 8 OPD chits, he has not produced any document and Ex.P.4 wound certificate is issued by the Government Hospital and Ex.P.9 is the disability certificate issued by the doctor P.W.2. In order to substantiate the contention that this particular vehicle was involved in the accident, no material is placed before the Court and in the wound certificate no history was given with regard to involvement of the two wheeler. The other document of the hospital chit does not disclose the involvement of the motorcycle and only relied upon the evidence of R.W.1. R.W.1 in the cross- examination admits that he caused the accident and also he agreed to pay the medical expenses, but he has not paid the same. When the complaint was given afterthought i.e., after 32 days of the accident, no material is produced to substantiate with regard to the involvement of the motorcycle in the accident and hence it is clear that it is a case of collusion between respondent No.1 and the claimant. When respondent No.1 has agreed to meet the hospital expenses and the same is admitted in the cross-examination and in view of collusion, fastening the liability on the Insurance Company i.e., respondent No.3 cannot be sustained. When such being the material on record, the Tribunal rightly exonerated the liability of the Insurance Company. However, the Tribunal taking note of the collusion between the claimant and respondent No.1, dismissed the claim petition.

6. The learned counsel for the claimant contend that if the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation, the compensation can be awarded against the insured, who admitted before the Court that he only caused the accident and also he had agreed to pay the expenses and in order to substantiate that he had spent amount towards medical expenses, no medical bills are produced. On perusal of the wound certificate Ex.P.4, he had suffered fracture of lower end of right tibia and the same is a comminuted fracture and this wound certificate is issued by the Government Hospital, Harihara. When no document is placed before the Court with regard to spending of amount towards medical expenses and also admitted in the hospital, it is appropriate to direct respondent No.1 to pay the compensation globally to the