JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by dismissal of his petition for compensation, the claimant in M.V.C.No.3631/2015 on the file of the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-1) has preferred this appeal.

2. On 02.02.2015 at 6.45 p.m., near Bannerghatta Main Road, the appellant met with an accident. He took preliminary treatment in Mathru Nursing Home. Then he was admitted in Supra South City Hospital. He was treated there from 02.02.2015 to 05.02.2015 as inpatient. From there he was shifted to Mamatha Hospital for intensive medical care and again shifted back to Supra South City Hospital.

3. The appellant filed M.V.C.No.3631/2015 claiming that respondent No.1 riding Honda Activa vehicle bearing No.KA-51-U-8594 in rash and negligent manner and high speed, hit him and caused the accident. He claimed that respondent No.1 himself shifted him to the hospital. Due to the accident, he suffered grievous injuries and consequent permanent physical disability. Respondent No.2 was the Insurer of the Honda Activa vehicle bearing No.KA-51-U-8594. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 contested the petition denying occurrence of the accident, rashness and negligence on the part of respondent No.1, age, occupation, income of the appellant, injuries and permanent physical disability suffered by him and their liability to pay the compensation. Respondent No.1 disputed that he shifted the appellant to the hospital. He claimed that the appellant in collusion with the police and others has falsely implicated him and his vehicle in the accident.

5. In support of his case, the appellant got himself examined as PW.1 and the doctor who treated him as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16. Respondent No.1 was examined as RW.3. On behalf of respondent No.2, RWs.1 and

2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R8 were marked.

6. The Tribunal on hearing the parties by the impugned order dismissed the petition holding that the medical evidence and other evidence probabilise the contention of the respondents that the insured vehicle is falsely implicated in the case.

Submissions of Sri Mento Isac, learned Counsel for the appellant:

7. The Investigating Officer on conducting thorough investigation, charge sheeted respondent No.1 under Ex.P3 for the commission of the offences under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC and he pleaded guilty. Admittedly, in the light of such evidence, the Tribunal was in grave error in disbelieving that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the Honda Activa Scooter bearing registration No.KA-51-U-8594.

The order of the Tribunal suffers perversity.

Submissions of Sri Ravish Benni, learned Counsel for respondent No.2:

8. The charge sheet and plea of guilt by respondent No.1 are not conclusive proof of the involvement of the insured vehicle in the case. The evidence on record and the admissions of PW.1 themselves show that the appellant and respondent No.1 in collusion with each other have manipulated the first information report, the charge sheet and the plea of guilt. The Tribunal on sound appreciation of the evidence rejected the evidence of the appellant regarding occurrence of the accident by the insured vehicle. That finding does not call for interference by this Court. In support of his submissions, he relies on the following judgments:

(i) Veerappa v. Siddappa1 (ii) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. v.

Ashok Raja Urs.K2.

(iii) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs.

B.C.Kumar3

1 ILR 2009 KAR 3562 2 ILR 2013 KAR 5097 3 ILR 2009 KAR 2921

(iv) Mahadevi W/o. Shrishail Kore and Others vs.

Shivaputra and Another

9. Having regard to the submissions of both side and examination of the records, the question that arises for consideration is “whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant has failed to prove that on 02.02.2015 at 6.45 p.m., respondent No.1 riding the motorcycle bearing No. No.KA-51-U-8594 rashly and negligently hit him and caused th