A 'slip and fall' entry in a Medico-Legal Case (MLC) record, made while the victim is under trauma, cannot override consistent police records and eye-witness testimony proving the involvement of another vehicle in a motor accident.

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1207/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 28TH ACMM, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

CAV JUDGMENT

Heard, Sri.Shripad V.Shastri., learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant and Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda., learned counsel for respondent No.1-Insurer.

Respondent No.2 though served, is unrepresented.

2. Calling in question the dismissal of Claim Petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-13) (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide Judgment and award dated 04.06.2015 in M.V.C.No.1207/2013, the claimant is in appeal seeking to set-aside the Judgment and award and remand the matter to consider on merits.

3. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

4. In an accident occurred on 24.01.2013 at about 11:00 am., the petitioner-claimant who was proceeding in Honda Activa Scooter bearing Reg. No.KA-04-EQ-7177, met with an accident due to rash and negligent riding of the Honda Activa Scooter bearing Reg. No.KA-53-V-4973, suffered grievous injuries. The claimant filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries.

5. Upon notice, respondent No.2 – owner of the offending vehicle, despite service remained unrepresented and placed ex-parte. Respondent No.1-Insurer entered appearance through its counsel and filed statement of objection.

6. In its statement of objection, respondent No.1 apart from denying the petition averments, specifically contended that the accident occurred due to slip and fall. After the accident, the claimant was shifted to Hosmat hospital for treatment, he has given a version/ history which is recorded in MLC as ‘ALLEGED H/O RTA on 24/01/2013 TWO WHEELER SLIP AND FALL’. It was further contended that this history recorded in MLC clearly shows that the accident was a self-accident. Further it was contended that the petitioner in active collusion with Police and Insured, filed false claim petition to get compensation. However, it was submitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurer.

7. The Tribunal upon completion of pleadings framed following issues:

1) Whether the petitioner proves that he had sustained grievous injuries in road traffic accident that alleged to have been occurred on 24.01.2013 at about 11 a.m. on HBR Layout, 3rd Block, opposite to KEB Office, Bengaluru, was due to rash & negligent riding of the Honda Activa Scooter bearing Reg.No.KA-04-EQ-7177 by its rider as alleged in the petition?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? If so to what extent & from whom?

3) What order?

8. The claimant in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW.1 and three witnesses as PWs.2 to 4 and produced 17 documents, marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. The respondent-Insurer examined its Manager as RW.1 and produced Coy of Policy marked as Ex.R1.

9. The Tribunal, upon completion of trial, heard the arguments and answered Issue No.1 in the Negative and Issue