ON

19.09.2022,

COMING

ON

FOR

8PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT9 THIS DAY, THE COURT

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the insurance company under

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (8MV Act9 for

short),

challenging

the

judgment

and

award

dated

08.03.2017 passed by the Court of Small Causes and MACT,

Bengaluru (SCCH-16) in MVC No.4790/2012.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein

are referred as per the ranks occupied by them before the

Tribunal.

3.

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are

that, on 19.08.2011 at about 12.15 p.m. the petitioner was

proceeding in motor cycle from his house towards

Krishnarajapura to attend his work. At that time Maruthi car

bearing registration No.KA-02/HL-4837 came in a high

3

speed and dashed against his motor cycle. Due to the

impact, he fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately he

was shifted to Lifeline hospital, Bengaluru and he has spent

sufficient amount towards his treatment. He further

asserted that he has lost his income because of accidental

injuries as he has suffered disability and as such filed a

claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act claiming

compensation of Rs.2,38,000/- from the respondents.

4.

The respondents have appeared and filed their

objections denying the allegations and assertions made

there under. The respondents contended that the MV report

disclose that there are no damages to the front portion of

the car and no damage to the rear portion of the two

wheeler. Hence, they dispute the claim. Respondent No.2

further assert that the driver of the offending vehicle was

not possessing valid and effective driving license. Hence,

sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

5.

The Tribunal after appreciating the oral as well as

documentary evidence, has awarded total compensation of

4

Rs.95,038/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the

date of petition.

6.

Being aggrieved by this judgment and award the

insurance company has come up with this appeal.

7.

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the appellant-insurance company and learned

counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the records.

8.

Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance

company contended that the accident has occurred on

19.08.2011 but the complaint was lodged on 22.08.2011

after delay of 3 days. It is also contended that the cross

examination

of

claimant-Pw.1

disclose

that

he

was

unconscious but there is no evidence as to how he got

knowledge regarding vehicle number. He would also

contend that there are no eye witnesses and there is no

evidence as to how vehicle was traced and he has also

brought to the notice of the Court that there was damage to

the front of the vehicle but no damage on the rear side of

the two wheeler and hence, he would contend that the

5

involvement of the vehicle is in dispute. Hence, he would

contend

that

Tribunal

is

not

justified

in

awarding

compensation. As such he would seek for allowing the

appeal and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

9.

On the contrary learned counsel for respondent 3

claimant would support the judgment and award passed by

the Tribunal. He would contend that Pw.3 is an eye witness

and merely because he is not cited as a charge sheet

witness the evidence cannot be ignored. He would contend

that the claimant was admittedly hospitalized and the delay

in lodging the complaint cannot be attributed to him as the

history was given regarding road traffic accident only and it

was the duty of the hospital authorities to initiate necessary

steps in this regard. He would further contend that the

Tribunal has awarded meager compensation but he would

contend that he is not challenging the said aspect and

sought for dismissal of the appeal.

10. Having heard the arguments and after perusing

the records, it is evident that the claimant has specifically

6

asserted regarding he being hit by the offending car. The

Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.95,038/-.

11. No

doubt

the

complaint

was

lodge