Claimants must establish vehicle involvement in accidents, and delays in lodging complaints do not negate proof unless they indicate fabrication or inconsistencies.

JUDGMENT :

GEETHA K.B., J.

The unsuccessful claimant is before this Court under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, ‘M.V.Act’), praying for setting aside the judgment of dismissal passed in MVC No.781/2010 dated 25.11.2013 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. Parties would be referred with their ranks, as they were before the Tribunal, for sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The claimant has filed the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act, praying for compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that had taken place on 23.06.2010, involving motorcycle bearing No.KA-25/EE-0740.

4. The case of claimant in nutshell is that, on 23.06.2010 around 16.30 hours, he was walking on the left side of the road through Indi Pump towards New English School; respondent No.3 who was the rider of Motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-25/EE-0740, (in short, the offending vehicle), came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner and thereby caused the accident. Due to said accident, claimant has sustained fracture injuries and took treatment at Shreyas Orthopaedic and Trauma Centre, Hubballi, as inpatient. Hence, he claimed compensation under several heads. On receipt of notice, respondent No.1 has not appeared and thus, placed exparte; respondents No. 3 appeared through his counsel, but not filed his objection statement.

5. It is only respondent No.2-the insurer of the offending vehicle has filed objection statement, wherein it denied the entire averments of the claim petition regarding the date, time and manner of accident and also the injuries sustained by the claimant and held that a false and concocted case is lodged against the rider of the motorcycle by the claimant. It has also taken all the necessary statutory defences available to the insurer cum owner. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. On behalf of claimant, claimant was examined as PW.1, apart from examining the doctor as PW.2 and marking Exhibits P1 to P50 before the Tribunal. On behalf of respondent No.2, the doctor who has given treatment at the initial stage to the claimant was examined as RW.1, apart from marking insurance policy as Exhibit R1 and closed its side before the Tribunal.

7. After recording evidence of both sides and hearing arguments of both the sides, the Tribunal has dismissed the petition on the ground that the claimant has not proved the accident as there is delay in lodging the complaint and the history given before the initial treated doctor as self fall from the motorcycle.

8. Aggrieved by the said judgment of dismissal, the claimant/appellant is before this Court.

9. Heard arguments of learned counsel Smt.Anita A. Anvekar on behalf of Sri Gourishankar H. Mot, for appellant and learned counsel Sri S.K.Kayakamath, for respondent No.2-insurance Company.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the claimant has produced all relevant materials before the Tribunal i.e., the medical documents, X-rays and other documents and also adduced the evidence of doctor, who treated the claimant to show that claimant has sustained injury in a road traffic accident that had taken place on 23.06.2010 involving the offending vehicle. However, only by relying on the oral evidence of R.W.1, the Tribunal grossly erred in dismissing the claim petition.

11. Learned counsel fo