This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company under

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the

judgment and award dated 19.07.2013 passed in MVC

No.79/2010 by the Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT-IX,

Basavana Bagewadi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'

for short).

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are

referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the

Tribunal.

3.

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are

that, on 19.01.2010 at about 6.00 p.m., the claimant was

proceeding by walk on the left side of the road and when he

was near Hanaman Temple, the rider of the motorcycle

bearing No.KA.28/U.2817 rode it in a rash and negligent

manner and dashed against the claimant from backside, due

to which the claimant fell on the road and the vehicle ran over

his legs and he suffered crush injuries on both the legs.

3

Immediately he was shifted to Dr. Shailesh Deshpande,

Matoshree Hospital, Bijapur. Prior to the accident, the claimant

was hale and healthy, doing mason work and was earning

Rs.8,000/- per month and after operation, his both the legs

below knee were amputated and he is permanently disabled.

Hence, he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under

Section 166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation of

Rs.12,00,000/-.

4.

Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 did not

contest the matter, while respondent No.2-insurer filed

objections denying the allegations and assertions made in the

claim petition. It is contended that there is a delay in lodging

the complaint and the claimant colluding with the police

authorities has falsely involved the offending vehicle in the

accident. He also denied the date, time and place of the

accident as well as the age, occupation and income of the

claimant and also the injuries sustained by the claimant. It is

also alleged that the rider of the motorcycle was not

possessing valid and effective driving licence. Hence, he

sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

4

5.

After appreciating the oral and documentary

evidence and after hearing the arguments, the Tribunal has

awarded total compensation of Rs.2,19,920/- to the claimant

with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition

till realization.

6.

Being aggrieved by this judgment and award,

respondent No.2-insurer has filed this appeal.

7.

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the appellant-insurer. The respondents did not

contest the matter by appearing before this Court. Perused

the records.

8.

The learned counsel for the appellant would

contend that the accident has taken place on 19.01.2010, but

the complaint was lodged on the next day and there is a delay

in lodging the complaint. He would also invite the attention of

the Court towards discharge summary – Ex.P9, wherein the

date of admission was overwritten from 17.01.2010 to

19.01.2010. He also invited the attention of the Court to

Ex.P10, wherein also the date of admission was overwritten

5

and the medical records disclose that the medicines were

purchased on 17.01.2010 itself. Hence, he would contend that

the very involvement of the vehicle and the alleged accident is

doubtful and it appears that the claimant had suffered injuries

somewhere else and was admitted in the hospital on

17.01.2010 and a false complaint was subsequently lodged by

implicating the vehicle. Hence, he would challenge the liability

and sought for allowing the appeal by dismissing the claim

petition.

9.

Having heard the arguments and perusing the

records, it is evident from the records that the complaint was

lodged on 20.01.2010 at 19.45 hours in the hospital itself.

This fact is evident from Ex.P4-complaint. Ex.P3 is the FIR,

Ex.P5 is the spot mahazar and Ex.P6 is the vehicle seizure

mahazar. The learned counsel for the appellant would harp on

Ex.P9 and contend that the date of admission was overwritten

from 17.01.2010 to 19.01.2010. He further contended that

same is with Ex.P10 also. He also invites the attention of th