The claimant must establish the occurrence of an accident with corroborative evidence; reliance solely on witness testimony without supporting documentation is insufficient for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

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

This appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the respondent-insurer challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.2481/2005 dated 21.08.2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

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

3. Claimant has filed claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident that had taken place on 15.04.2005 at about 03.00 p.m.; when she was waiting for the bus by the side of Bailhongal bypass road near Anigol bus stop, a Hero Honda C.D. Dawn motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-24/H-3004 came from opposite direction and dashed against her and thereby caused the accident which resulted in grievous injuries i.e., deformity of her right middle 1/3^rd of leg, fracture of both tibia and fibula. Hence, she prayed for compensation under several heads.

4. After service of notice of the petition, respondent-owner appeared through his counsel and filed objections, wherein he denied the petition averments in toto and further contented that compensation claimed by the claimant is highly exorbitant and further stated that it is duly insured with respondent No.2. Hence, prayed for dismissal of petition.

5. Respondent No.2-insurer on service of notice appeared and filed its objections denying the petition averments in toto and denied the date, time and place of accident. It further contended that there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint which was not properly explained. It is only an afterthought in collusion with police officials and respondent No.1. Hence, prayed for dismissal of petition.

6. Initially after recording evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the road traffic accident involving the vehicle in question is not proved by the claimant and thereby dismissed the petition by passing the judgment on 31.12.2007. Aggrieved by said judgment and award, the claimant has preferred MFA No.21080/2008 which was allowed on 14.03.2014 and matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal.

7. After such remand, the claimant examined eyewitness as P.W.3; the administrative officer of respondent No.2 was examined as R.W.1; then after recording the evidence of both sides and hearing the arguments, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident is proved and granted the compensation of Rs. .2,22,880/- with current and future interest at 6% per annum by saddling the liability on respondent No.2-insurer.

8. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant-insurer.

9. Learned counsel for appellant-insurer Sri Rajesh B Rajanal vehemently would submit his arguments that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. He further would submit that there is delay of 10 days in lodging the complaint. Initially, when the claimant was admitted to the hospital, MLC was issued and it was not produced by the appellant-claimant even though there was specific undertaking while remanding the matter to the Tribunal by this court by the claimant’s advocate that he would produce the extract of MLC register and examine the doctor. Hence, the respondent-insurer has produced said extract of MLC register as per Ex.R.2 before the Tribunal. On perusal of it, initially a