The court affirmed that a claimant must provide credible evidence demonstrating the involvement of the defendant's vehicle in a motor accident to be entitled to compensation.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M ADIGA, J.

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 01.09.2014, passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Hassan (for short “the Tribunal”) in MVC No.189/2010, seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. It is the case of the claimant that, on 30.09.2009 at about 8:45 pm., when he was crossing B.M. Road at Hassan, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No.KA-13-M-3650 by its driver. In the said accident, he sustained injuries to legs, hip, head, hands and fracture of hip joint and suffered permanent disability. He took treatment as an inpatient and spent substantial amount towards medical expenses. The claimant was aged about 34 years, he was an Auto driver and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he suffered functional disability. With these reasons, the claimant has prayed for awarding of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 is the insurer. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte and respondent No.2-New India Assurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and filed its written statement and it has denied the contentions of the claim petitioner. It also denied its liability to pay the compensation. Further, it has stated that, there is a delay of four (4) days in filing the complaint. Time of the accident is also not consistent. There is no visible damage to the offending vehicle. All these facts indicate that the vehicle was falsely implicated in the accident. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues, for its determination.

6. The claimant, to prove his case, examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and marked 13 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW.1 and marked documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.

7. The Tribunal after hearing both parties, held that the accident did not occur in the manner stated in the claim petition and dismissed the claim petition without assessing the compensation.

8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as the insurer and perused the material placed before the Court.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and has disbelieved the claimant's evidence solely on the basis of Ex.P.11. Ex.R1-Authorization letter indicates that initially the car hit the two wheeler and thereafter, hit the claimant. Mere delay is not a valid ground to doubt the occurrence of the accident. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal is erroneous. He further contended that the claimant suffered fracture of the hip bone, was admitted as inpatient and underwent surgery. He has suffered permanent disability. In this regard, PW.2-Dr.Lakshmisha T., the treating doctor, who assessed the extent of disability was examined. With these reasons, he prayed to award just and reasonable amount of compensation.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that there was a delay of four days in filing the complaint and the same was not properly explained. Ex.P11-MLC extract is produced by the claimant to show that the accident occurred between the car and two wheeler. It is not clear as to whether the claimant was riding the said two wheeler or if he was a pillion rider. T