The court determined the misidentified vehicle's involvement in an accident, emphasizing the importance of evidentiary consistency in determining liability.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’ for brevity) by the appellant–insurance company, calling in question the judgment and award dated 29.01.2016, passed in M.V.C.No.7829/2011, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal And Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) praying for reducing the quantum of compensation.

Brief facts:

2. On 03.06.2011 at about 11.30 p.m., when the claimant was proceeding as a pillion rider in Honda Activa bearing registration No.KA-01-W-7344 near 5th Main Road, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru, at that time one Goods Autorickshaw bearing reg. No.KA-05-AB-2749 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules and regulations, dashed against the claimant’s vehicle, due to which the claimant was thrown away and sustained grievous injuries.

3. Hence, a claim petition was filed by the appellant- claimant under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered in the accident. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part, and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,34,265/-, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The Tribunal held respondent Nos.1 to 2 therein, liable to pay the compensation.

4. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and the learned counsel for the claimant and perused the materials on record.

5. The Tribunal has granted compensation by holding that the auto-rickshaw No.KA-05-AB-2749 has caused the accident and accordingly directed the owner and the appellant-insurer of the auto-rickshaw to pay the compensation.

6. The respondents even though are served with notice have remained absent.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant–insurance company submitted that auto-rickshaw No.KA-05-AB-2749 was not at all involved in the accident, but one tempo traveler hit the Honda Activa scooter on which the claimant was riding as a pillion rider. Therefore, submitted that the goods auto-rickshaw was falsely implicated into the case only for claiming compensation from appellant- insurance company. He argued with reference to the evidence placed by the claimant himself and the evidence produced by insurance company. Therefore, submitted that this goods auto-rickshaw in question was not involved in the accident. Hence, prays to set-aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

8. It is the case of the claimant that he was proceeding in the Honda Activa scooter as pillion rider and the goods auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-05-AB-2749 had dashed the scooter.

9. There is a delay of two days in lodging the complaint. In the complaint, it is stated that goods auto- rickshaw bearing No.KA-05-AB-2749 had hit the scooter. Just because there is a delay lodging a complaint, that cannot be a ground to suspect the involvement of the vehicle. But where the other evidences are available doubting the involvement of the goods auto-rickshaw can be appreciated.

10. It is the contention of the insurance company that goods auto-rickshaw was not involved in the accident as it has not hit the Honda Activa scooter, but it was one tempo traveler that hit the Honda Activa scooter and for best reasons known to the claimant, complaint was lodged against the goods autorickshaw. In this regard, Exhibit- P19, case-sheet is produced. Normally and quite naturally when a trauma has occurred as in the present case in the road traffic accident, then the injured would be shifted to the hospital and the hospital authorities takes hi