JUDGMENT

Challenging dismissal of his petition, the claimant in M.V.C.No.5692/2009 on the file of VIII Additional Small Causes Judge & XXXIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, MACT, Bangalore has preferred this appeal. 2. The appellant was the claimant and the respondents were respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

3. On 13.02.2009 at 4.30 p.m. when the claimant was proceeding on motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-05-EU-6188 near East End, Sangam Circle, 8th Block, Jayanagar, he met with the accident. In the accident, he suffered grievous injuries.

4. Regarding the accident, the claimant’s father Mohamed Shafiq Ahmed filed the complaint on 26.02.2009 before Mico Layout Traffic Police alleging that when the claimant was proceeding on motorcycle, the luggage auto hit him. Consequently he was thrown to the other side of the road and by that time the mini lorry bearing Registration No.KA-34-3524 which was coming from the opposite side rashly and negligently dashed against the claimant and sped away causing him grievous injuries. On the very same day Mohamed Shafiq Ahmed purportedly gave further statement as per Ex.P1(a), to the effect that soon after the accident, his son was unconscious and he was not eyewitness, he had given complaint implicating goods auto under misconception, later one Ramesh eyewitness to the incident revealed to him that goods auto was not involved in the accident, it was lorry bearing No.KA-34-3524 which alone hit his son and caused him grievous injuries.

5. Based on such complaint, Mico Layout police registered first information report in Crime No.38/2009 against the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-34-3524. After investigation, Mico Layout police said to have filed the charge sheet as per Ex.P7 on 20.06.2009 against respondent No.1 Azmal Pasha (after four months of the accident) for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 of IPC and Section 134(a)(b) read with Section 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’ for short) imputing actionable negligence to him.

6. As per Ex.P8 the order of the learned Magistrate respondent No.1 pleaded guilty and he was sentenced to fine. At the relevant time, respondent Nos.2 and 3 were the insurer and registered owner of vehicle No.KA-34-3524. 7. The claimant filed M.V.C.No.5692/2009 before the Tribunal claiming that the accident occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of respondent No.1. He further contended that due to the injuries suffered in the accident, he suffered permanent physical disability thereby he has lost his future earning capacity. He claimed compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- from the respondents.

8. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 did not contest the petition. Respondent No.2 Insurer alone contested the petition denying occurrence of the accident involving lorry bearing registration No.KA-34-3524, the injuries suffered by the claimant, his age, occupation, income and its liability to pay the compensation. Respondent No.2 contended that the vehicle is falsely planted in the case.

9. In support of claimant’s case, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, the Official of respondent No.2 was examined as RW.1 and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked.

10. The Tribunal on hearing the parties, by the impugned award dismissed the petition holding that the involvement of the vehicle in the accident was not proved and the vehicle is planted in the case subsequently.

11. Sri Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri K.N.Subba Reddy, learned Counsel on record for the claimant vehemently contended that respondent Nos.1 and 3 the driver and owner of the vehicle themselves have not denied occurrence of the accident involving lorry bearing registration No.KA-34-3524. Further respondent No.1 pleaded guilty of the offences. As against such evidence, the Tribunal picked up minor i