The court ruled that claims of accident liability must be supported by credible evidence; in this case, historical medical records proved the death resulted from a self-fall rather than motorcycle involvement.

ORDER :

(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)

MFA No.102865/2022 is filed under Section 173 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act’) and MFA Crob. No.100011/2024 is filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of C.P.C. challenging the judgment and award dated 01.07.2022 passed in MVC No.425/2020 on the file of IV Additional District Judge and MACT-V, Belagavi (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

2. MFA No.102865/2022 is filed by the Insurer on the ground that no accident had taken place and the motor cycle is falsely implicated in the case; whereas MFA Crob. No.100011/2024 is filed by the claimants praying for enhancement of compensation.

3. The parties would be referred with their ranks as they were before the Tribunal for convenience and clarity.

4. The case of claimants before the Tribunal in nutshell is that on 22.04.2019, the wife of claimant No.1, who is the mother of claimants No.2 and 3, had been to attend Jathra at Savalagimath and while returning back, she was the pillion rider of Hero Honda HF Deluxe motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-49/S-4982 while respondent No.1 was riding said motor cycle; when it came near Matagar Factory on Hidakal Dam Road, at about 15:30-15:35 hours, she fell down from the motor cycle due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, sustained injuries and immediately she was shifted to BIMS Hospital, Belagavi and then to KIMS Hospital for further treatment, but she succumbed to injuries on 23.04.2019 at 00.05 hours.

5. The claimants further contended that the deceased was aged about 41 years at the time of accident, was hale and healthy and was doing tailoring work and she was also running Xerox shop at Ankalagi. The claimants contended that they were dependents on the earnings of the deceased. Hence, prayed for compensation under different heads.

6. On issuance of notice, respondent No.2-Insurer filed its objection statement, wherein initially it has taken contention that the accident happened due to the sole negligence of the deceased and other objections. Subsequently, it amended the objection statement and deleted the above contention and further took contention at para No.28 that the deceased sustained injuries due to self- fall while walking at about 02.00 p.m. near her house on 22.04.2019 and with that history she was admitted to BIMS Hospital, Belagavi. Thus, there was no involvement of the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-49/S-4982 and thus there is no question of indemnifying respondent No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7. On behalf of claimants, claimant No.1 was examined as P.W.1 apart from examining two witnesses as P.W.2, P.W.3, marking Exs.P.1 to P.17 and closed their side before the Tribunal. On behalf of respondent-Insurer, R.W.1 is examined apart from marking Exs.R.1 to R.5 and one certified copy of statement of petitioner No.1 at Ex.R.1 before the Tribunal.

8. After recording evidence of both sides and hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident happened due to rash and negligent riding of rider of the motor cycle and due to that the wife of claimant No.1 fell from the motor cycle and succumbed to those injuries and thus granted compensation under following different heads.

9. Being not satisfied with the aforesaid compensation, claimants have filed cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation. Appellant-Insurer has also filed appeal denying the accident itself.

10. Heard arguments of both sides.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer, Sri Subhash J Baddi would submit there is ample material produced before the Tribunal to show that there was no accident at all and it is only due to self-fall of the deceased while walking near her house on 22.04.2019 at 02.00 p.m., the accident happened. He mainly relies on Exs.R.3 and R.4 and cross-examination of P.W.2 coupled with MVI report as per Ex.P.6.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the Tribunal has not examined these material aspects meticulously and came