Claimants must provide sufficient evidence to establish the occurrence of an accident and its direct connection to alleged damages. Failure to meet this burden results in dismissal of compensation claims.

JUDGMENT :

GEETHA K.B., J.

1. The appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the quantum of compensation and also liability, whereas Cross- objection is filed by claimants claiming enhancement of compensation being not satisfied with the judgment and award dated 07.05.2022 passed in MVC No.1505/2015 on the file of V Addl. District Judge and Addl. MACT-VI, Belagavi (for short ‘Tribunal’) under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’).

2. The parties would be referred with their ranks as they were before trial court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. Claimants have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act, praying for compensation in respect of the death of one Yallappa son of Bhima Bangi in the road traffic accident involving motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-23/W-7411 that had taken place on 27.05.2014 at 16.45 hours at Anandapur Plot, Hattargi. It is alleged that deceased who was the pillion rider of said vehicle, has fallen down and due to that he sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to those injuries on 12.09.2014.

4. On service of notice, respondent No.2-insurer filed its objection statement wherein it has denied the entire averments in the petition and contended that it is a false and concocted story. The claimants have filed the false claim petition and no alleged accident as such had taken place. The accident occurred only because of negligence of the deceased. The claimants colluding with hospital authorities have created the documents and filed the false claim petition. The rider of the motorcycle was not having valid driving license. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. On behalf of the claimants, claimant No.2 and a witness were examined as P.W.1 & P.W.2 apart from marking Ex.P.1 to P.23 before the Tribunal. On behalf of respondents, R.W.1 was examined apart from marking Ex.R.1 and R.2.

6. After recording evidence of both sides and hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants have established that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of rider of the motor cycle in question and claimants are entitled for total compensation of total Rs.7,47,738/- under following different heads:

7. Not satisfied with the above compensation, claimants have preferred Cross objection No.1001158/2022 wherein, they contended that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side. It has not awarded the compensation in respect of loss towards Estate and funeral expenses. Hence, prays for allowing the cross-objection and to enhance the compensation.

8. The learned counsel for appellant/insurer Sri G.N.Raichur would submit that the Tribunal committed grave error in not properly scrutinizing the records. There is an inordinate delay in filing the complaint. The FIR is lodged only in collusion with police officials. There is no proper evidence placed before the Tribunal. The vehicle in question was not at all involved in the accident. There were no damages to the said vehicle. The deceased was inpatient from 27.05.2014 to 31.05.2014. But he died about 4 months after this incident and there is no material to show that only because of the accidental injuries, the injured died. There was only fracture of right femur as per Ex.P.7- wound certificate, which is not a fatal injury. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal and to set aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, verifying the appeal papers and trial Court records, the point that would arise for consideration is “Whether the claimants prove that