The court upheld that errors in police documentation do not invalidate a claim for compensation, emphasizing the need for accurate evidence to determine liability in injury cases.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M ADIGA, J.

Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment and award dated 06.02.2012 passed by MACT, Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagara, in MVC.No.339/2009 (for short 'the Tribunal').

2. MFA.No.5248/2012 is filed by the insurer and MFA.CROB.No.113/2012 is filed by the claimant challenging the impugned judgment and award.

3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.11.2008 at around 5.00 p.m., when the claimant was going by walk near lake of Channapatna road, the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-42-H-3035 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Channapatna and thereafter, he was taken to Mathru Sri Nursing Home, then for higher treatment, he was shifted to Bowring Hospital, Bengaluru as well as NIMHANS Hospital. He spent rupees two lakhs towards medical expenses.

5. It is further case of the claimant that at the time of accident he was aged about 25 years, was earning Rs.6,000/- p.m. by working in Silk twisting factory as well as agriculture and suffered permanent functional disability. With these reasons, he prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.10 lakhs.

6. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 filed written statement denying the contentions of the claimant. He further contended that the accident occurred on 01.11.2008 at around 5.00 p.m. and not on 02.11.2008, and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner and not due to negligence of the rider of the vehicle. The said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and policy of insurance was in force from 04.06.2008 to 03.06.2009 and hence respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation. With these reasons, respondent No.1 prayed to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.1.

7. Respondent No.2 denied the contentions of the claimant. It stated that the accident occurred on 02.11.2008 at around 5.00 p.m. and complaint was lodged after a delay of three days, i.e., on 05.11.2008 and according to the pleadings, the accident took place on 01.11.2008. Therefore, there is no consistency in respect of date and time of the incident. Just to claim compensation the said vehicle was falsely implicated with the help of owner and rider of the vehicle. It also denied its liability to pay the compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

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

9. To prove his case, the claimant examined 3 witnesses as PW-1 to PW3 and marked Exs.P1 to P68. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW-1 and marked one document as Ex.R1.

10. The tribunal after hearing both the parties, and appreciating materials available on record, held that the accident occurred on 01.11.2008 due to the involvement of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal also assessed the age, disability etc., and awarded following amount of compensation:

11. Being aggrieved by the same, both claimant as well as the insurer preferred these appeals.

12. Heard the argu