Claimants failed to prove the negligence of the offending vehicle's rider, leading to the dismissal of their appeal.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA)

Being aggrieved, the claimants are before this Court assailing the judgment and award dated 27.06.2018 in MVC No.1148/2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vijayapura (‘Tribunal’, for short), whereby the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is dismissed with costs.

2. Alleging a road traffic accident that occurred on

21.04.2014, deceased Bhimashankar, who was riding a Motorbike bearing Registration No.MH-13/U-5831 with another pillion rider, when another Motorbike bearing Registration No.MH-13/X-4001 came from opposite direction driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner and collided with their vehicle, resulting in serious injury. Due to the impact, deceased Bhimashankar succumbed to the injuries on 26.04.2014 in the hospital. The claimants being the dependents of deceased asserted that the accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent riding of rider the offending Motorbike and sought compensation.

3. Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company contested the claim by denying the occurrence of the accident as alleged and raised serious doubt regarding genuineness of the claim and also raised contention that there was unexplained delay of nearly 10 days in lodging the FIR. The pillion rider (PW-2), who allegedly sustained injuries could have immediately reported the accident. The Insurance Company specifically asserted and denied about the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident.

4. The Tribunal after considering the pleadings and evidence on record held that the claimants have failed to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of rider of the Motorbike bearing Registration No.MH-13/X-4001. It noted that there was a significant delay of nearly 10 days in lodging FIR, for which no satisfactory explanation was offered. The Tribunal found inconsistency between the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the documentary evidence, particularly the Spot Panchanama (Ex.P.2), which was prepared nearly a month after occurrence of alleged accident and did not corroborate with the claimants’ version.

5. Tribunal further observed that P.W.1 was not an eyewitness, and though P.W.2 claim to have been present during the accident, neither he reported the accident immediately nor has taken any action by him, which caused further doubt on the credibility of the claim. The Tribunal held that the claimants failed to discharge the burden of proof and the case was not genuine and, accordingly dismissed the petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would argue that P.W.2, who was the pillion rider and an eyewitness to the incident clearly deposed that the offending vehicle came from opposite direction and hit the deceased’s motorbike. It is submitted that mere delay in filing the complaint should not outweigh the substantive evidence of P.W.2 and the consistent version given by P.W.1 in the claim petition.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company justifies the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submits that the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.

9. The occurrence of accident is on 21.04.2014 at about 8.30 hours when deceased was proceeding on his Motorbike bearing Registration No.MH-13/U-5831. According to the claimants, the rider of the Motorbike bearing Registration No.MH-13/X-4001 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the said motorbike of the deceased. Due to the impact, deceased succumbed to the injuries on 26.04.2014 while undergoing treatment. FIR was