ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’ for brevity) by the appellants-claimants, challenging the judgment and award dated 25.02.2014, passed in MVC No.56/2010, on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kolar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity), thereby, dismissed the claim petition. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

2. On 05.08.2009 at 12:15 a.m. (mid night) the deceased Venkatamunireddy was riding the TVS moped towards Mulbagal near N. Vaddahalli Gate and at that time a lorry No.TN-07-A-1111 driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, overtook the TVS moped and abruptly stopped the vehicle on the middle of the highway NH-4 road without any signal. Hence, the deceased was on a straight hit to the lorry due to which, he has sustained grievous injuries and hospitalized at various hospitals such as Victoria hospital, NIMHANS hospital, R.L Jalappa hospital, Kolar and Government hospital Mulbagal. But succumbed to the injuries on 05.01.2010. Therefore, the claimants have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for claiming compensation. But the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the reason that there is no nexus proved between the accidental injuries and death and also on the reason that it is hit and run case, but the lorry was falsely implanted in the case. Therefore, with these reasons the claim petition was filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants submitted that there is no delay in lodging a complaint. Soon after the accident, a complaint was lodged before the police by mentioning the number of lorry as TN-07-A-1111. Considering the proximity of the time of accident and time of lodging the complaint to the police, there could not be manipulation. Hence, there is a prompt in lodging of complaint. Furthermore, considering the nature of injury sustained as the claimant was suffering bleeding in the brain resulting cardio respiratory arrest, hence died. It is proved from the post mortem report and also as per the evidence of the doctor-PW-3. Therefore, submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is not correct and prays for grant of compensation.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the date of accident and the date of death is too wide to believe that deceased died due to accidental injuries. Further, the lorry was seized on 07.09.2009 and that TVS motor vehicle on 19.01.2010 and charge sheet has been filed after the death of deceased. All these delay creates suspiciousness regarding accident and death of the deceased. Therefore submit that it is hit and run case and offending lorry is not met with accident. Therefore, justified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal.

5. Evidence are appreciated. It is alleged in the complaint Ex.P.2 that on 04.08.2009 at 10.00 pm the deceased had left his house but it is TVS champ moped and was proceeding towards Mulbagal at that time and at 12:15 am on 05.08.2009 the accident was caused. In the said accident the deceased had sustained grievous injuries. The complainant is younger brother of the deceased. The date of accident is 05.08.2009 at 12:15 am (mid night). Complaint is lodged on 05.08.2009 in the morning at 9:00 am. Therefore, there is no much time gap between the time of the accident and the time of the lodging a complaint before the police. Hence, there could not have been chances of manipulating so as to insert a vehicle showing in the accident. Therefore, considering these proximity of times, all the events which are facts in issue are occurred in natural course of events.

6. The accident caused on 05.08.2009 and deceased died on 05.01.2010. There is a time gap of four months from the date of accident and the date of death. Just because charge sheet is filed after the death of the deceased is not the gro