The claimants must substantiate vehicle involvement in accidents and disclose all relevant facts for valid compensation.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.85/2013 dated 01.08.2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Arkalgud, whereby the Tribunal had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.1,80,800/-, the Insurance Company is before this Court questioning the liability.

2. The claim petition was filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

HC-KAR

3. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant on

08.07.2012 at 04.30 p.m. while he was walking on the side of the road, the rider of the Hero Honda bike came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant and as a result, he fell down on the road and sustained abrasion of the over right knee, abrasion over outer aspect of right leg and tibia tibula of right leg were fractured and he was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Arkalgudu.

4. It is the case of the Insurance Company that the vehicle is not at all involved and this particular vehicle is implicated in this case. In fact, the claimant had sustained injuries on 27.06.2012 and that was never stated in the claim petition and after the Insurance Company has marked Ex.R.2 and adduced evidence, it is the case of the claimant in the cross examination that he had sustained injuries and thereafter he has compromised with the owner and he has not filed the complaint. After that, he had sustained the injury on 08.07.2012 and the injuries that were sustained in the earlier accident and this accident is not one and the same. The Tribunal had not considered the case of the Insurance Company HC-KAR and held that the vehicle is involved in the accident and has occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and granted the compensation.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had failed to consider that there are two accidents. One is on 27.06.2012 and other is on 08.07.2012. The injuries that were sustained on 27.06.2012 are similar to that of 08.07.2012. The claimant had not stated about the earlier accident and when they have confronted with Ex.R.2 that is the copy of the MLC, then it is stated that he has compromised. It is submitted that it throws any amount of doubt on the case of the claimant which is crucial and which goes to the root of the matter and the Tribunal had failed to consider the submission of the Insurance Company. It is submitted that the Insurance Company is not liable as the vehicle in question is not involved in the accident.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant submits that the injuries that were sustained on 27.06.2012 and 08.07.2012 are not one and the same. It is submitted that the MLC register was not produced and no issue is framed to HC-KAR that effect and without framing an issue and without adducing any evidence, Tribunal had rightly not considered the said submission made by the Insurance Company. It is submitted that without framing an issue any amount of evidence that is adduced cannot be looked into.

7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the materials on record. This Court finds force in the argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company with regard to the 27.06.2012 and the 08.07.2012 accident and also non disclosure of the earlier accident by the claimant assumes more significance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no doubt, the Tribunal has not framed any issue in this regard. When the Insurance Company is disputing the accident and when it is the case that the vehicle is involved the burden lies on the claimant to prove that. The burden lies on the cla