AND

AWARD

DATED:04.05.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.999/2015 ON THE

FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND

2

ADDITIONAL MACT, HIRIYUR, DISMISSING THE CLAIM

PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the petitioner/claimant under

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

Act9)

challenging

the

judgment

and

award

dated

04.05.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC

and Additional MACT, Hiriyur (for short, 8Tribunal9) in MVC

No.999/2015.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein

are referred with the original ranks occupied by them

before the Tribunal.

3.

The brief factual matrix leading to the case is

that, on 25.06.2015 at about 10.00 p.m. the petitioner

and his friend Mokshappa were proceeding on motor cycle

bearing Registration No. KA.16.U.1525 and Mokshappa

was riding the bike, while the petitioner/claimant was a

pillion rider. When they reached near KEB office, the

rider-Mokshappa rode the motor cycle in rash and

3

negligent manner over the humps, due which, the

petitioner fell down from the bike and sustained fractural

injuries and he has spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards his

treatment. Hence, he has filed claim petition under

Section 166 of the MV Act, claiming compensation of

Rs.27.00 Lakhs.

4.

The Tribunal has observed that the claimant

has failed to establish that he suffered injuries because of

actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the bike

bearing Registration No. KA.16.U.1525, while he was

travelling as pillion rider and as such, fastened the liability

on Respondent No.1/Owner by awarding compensation of

Rs.6,31,145/- with interest at 7.5% per annum and

dismissed the claim petition as against Respondent

No.2/Insurer.

Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the

claim petition as against Respondent No.2/Insurer, the

petitioner is before this Court.

5.

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned counsel

for respondent/Insurer. Perused the records.

4

6.

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant

would contend that the claimant was aged about 75 years

and he suffered grievous injuries in the accident in

question, when he was travelling as a pillion rider on the

offending motor cycle. He would also contend that, as he

suffered

grievous

fractural

injuries

and

he

was

hospitalized, he was not in a position to lodge complaint

immediately and as such, there is delay in lodging

complaint and Tribunal without appreciating the said

aspects, has wrongly held that the claimant himself was

the rider and dismissed the claim against the 2^nd

respondent/Insurance Company, as such, he would seek

for interference with the impugned judgment and award

passed by the Tribunal.

7.

Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent

No.2 would support the judgment and award passed by

the Tribunal and further contend that the Tribunal in Para

Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 has elaborately discussed about

false implication of the vehicle and concoction of the

documents and as such, it has rightly rejected the claim

petition as against 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company

5

and as such, he would contend that the said finding does

not call for any interference,

8.

Having heard the arguments and perusing the

records, it is evident from the records that the claimant

was admitted in Shree Nursing home, Hiriyur for 12 days

with a history of fracture of right femur and fracture of L-1

vertebra along with other simple injuries. The history was

given regarding fall from the bike. It is important to note

here that the petitioner/claimant is the father of

Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the offending bike.

It is also important to note here that the claimant is the

Medical Officer being practicing Doctor and though he was

admitted in Shree Nursing Home with the alleged history

of accident, no MLC intimation was sent to the concerned

police by the concerned hospital authorities. Even

PW.1/cl