In motor accident claims, the failure to provide medical evidence linking injuries to the accident and the absence of a plausible explanation for the vehicle's involvement can justify the dismissal of the claim.

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.06.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.329/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, BELGAUM, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 166 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT & ETC.

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 17.06.2014 passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi (‘Tribunal’ for short) in MVC no.329/2012, this appeal is filed.

2. Sri SM Kalwad, learned counsel for appellants submitted that appeal was by claimant against dismissal of claim petition. It was submitted that on 20.05.2008, Kasturi Rajaram Koli was pillion rider on Motorcycle no.MH-09/AK-3924 going towards Hukkeri for election duty, when rider rode it in rash and negligent manner, lost control and fell down near Krishi Office on Hukkeri - Balagavi road. Thereafter accident, she was admitted to KLE Hospital, Belagavi, she succumbed to same three days later on 23.05.2008. Alleging loss of dependency on account of her untimely death, her husband and children filed claim petition against owner and insurer of motorcycle under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. Despite service of notice, owner did not appear and was placed ex-parte. Only insurer opposed claim petition on all grounds.

4. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant no.1 along with one witness deposed as PWs1 and 2 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P19. Insurer examined its official as RW1 and got marked Exhibits R1 to R5.

5. On consideration, Tribunal dismissed claim petition on ground that claim petition was earlier disposed of by permanent Lok Adalat, was set aside by this Court on ground of lack of jurisdiction and reserved liberty to claimant to file claim petition before Tribunal. In these proceedings, Tribunal had summoned entire records before permanent Lok Adalat and on perusal of same, merely on ground of delay in filing complaint and medical records not indicating history of injuries were due to RTA and ignoring fact that police after investigation had filed charge sheet against rider of motorcycle, erroneously dismissed claim petition. Therefore, claimants were in appeal.

6. It was submitted that in a claim petition, strict rules of evidence would not apply and police after investigation had chargesheeted rider of motorcycle for accident and same would be sufficient to establish actionable negligence against respondent. On said grounds sought for allowing appeal and assessing appropriate compensation.

7. On other hand, Sri SS Koliwad, learned counsel for insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted that present appeal was dismissed against owner and as such appeal would not be tenable only against insurer. Even on merits, it was submitted that while passing impugned award, Tribunal had referred to records of permanent Lok Adalat summoned by it and on noting non-mention of injuries occurring due to RTA in treatment records of KLE Hospital, Belagavi as well as on ground that there was no explanation how motorcycle belonging to Maruti Tanappa Kalavikatti, a resident of Mhasala of Raigad in Maharashtra, was in hands of Suresh Madhukar Patil and plying in Hukkeri, Karnataka, held claimant's case as doubtful and dismissed claim. Same being on appreciation of material on record and did not call for interference.

8