A claimant must prove negligence and causation for compensation under motor vehicle accident claims.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the dismissal of MVC.No.1121/2017 dated

02.01.2020 by the Senior Civil Judge & AMACT, Arsikere, the claimant is before this Court.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 15.04.2017 at about 11.30 a.m. the claimant was going on his motorcycle and the KSRTC bus came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's motorcycle and caused an accident. In the said accident, he sustained the injuries. Police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the KSRTC bus.

3. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition observing that as per the IMV report front and rear side of the motorcycle was damaged and the rear side bumper of the KSRTC bus was scratched. If the contention of the petitioner that the KSRTC bus had come and hit the bike from behind were to be true, then some damages or at least a scratch should have been found on the front side of the bus as it was coming in a rash and negligent manner. But, the mahazar and the IMV report indicate that there are no damages found on front side of the bus, much less any scratches. But, on the other hand, there is a damage found on the rear side of the bus wherein the bumper was scratched. This shows that some motorcycle must have come and hit the bus from behind. There is no explanation given by the claimant in this regard. This creates any amount of doubt with regard to the manner of accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the claimant had failed to prove that there was negligence and because of the negligence of the driver of the KSRTC bus the accident had taken place.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that when the crime is registered and the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the KSRTC bus, the Tribunal ought not to have gone into all these aspects and ought to have held that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus. It is submitted that the claimant had sustained injuries and the Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim petition by granting compensation.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC submits that the Tribunal had rightly considered the evidence on record and the fact with regard to the damages sustained to the bike and rightly came to the conclusion and there are no grounds to interfere.

6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the materials on record. It is the case of the claimant that the KSRTC bus came from behind and hit the claimant. The IMV report is placed before the Court. The rear side bumper of the KSRTC bus was scratched and there are no damages to the front of the bus that which makes it clear that the case of the claimant is contrary to the evidence on record. Just because the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the KSRTC bus that itself would not be a reason for the Tribunal to come to a conclusion that the accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. When a claim petition is filed, the burden lies on the claimant to prove that the accident has occurred and the same is occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. The claimant had failed to prove the same. In fact, his own version and the stand that is taken by the claimant is contrary to the evidence on record and the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the petition and this Court finds no reason to interfere.

i. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

ii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

iii. All pending I.As in the appeal shall stand closed.