Karnataka High Court
Master Prajwal S/O Gopal Shetty vs Abdul Azeez P on 26 November, 2012
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9504 OF 2010(MV)
BETWEEN:
Master Prajwal,
S/o Gopal Shetty,
Aged about 14 Years,
Minor represented by his next
Friend natural guardian, father
Gopal Shetty,
S/o Kanthappa Shetty,
R/at Gundalike, Bejai Post,
MANGALORE - 4. .. APPELLANT.
(By Sri.S.Giregowda, for
M/s.P.Karunakar Assts., Advs.,)
AND:
1. Abdul Azeez P.,
S/o Ahammed P.K.,
Adult, Businessman,
D.No.10/636, Badriya,
Manzil, P.K.Road,
Parakatta, Uppala,
Kasargod Taluk and District,
KERALA STATE.
2. Branch Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Div. No.10, Flat No.101,
2
106 N-1, BMC House,
Connaught place,
NEW DELHI. .. RESPONDENTS.
(By Smt.S.Nirmala,
Adv. for R-2,
R-1 - Served)
*-*-*-*-*-*-*
This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor
Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Award dated
09.02.2010 passed in MVC No.306/2008 on the file of I
Additional District Judge, Member, MACT-II, D.K., Mangalore
dismissing the Claim Petition for compensation.
This Appeal coming on for Final Hearing this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Claimant in MVC No.306/2008 on the file of MACT, D.K., Mangalore, has come up in this appeal impugning the Judgment and Award dated 09.02.2010 in dismissing the said Claim Petition.
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:
The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 05.01.2008 at about 12.45 p.m., while he was walking by the side of road near Bondel, Yeyyadi, Padvu Village, Mangalore 3 Taluk, he was hit by Maruti Car bearing No.KA-19/N-9341, which was coming from Kavoor side, at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. After the accident, immediately he was shifted to A.J. Hospital, where he was treated as inpatient from 05.01.2008 to 15.01.2008 and thereafter filed the Claim Petition for the injuries suffered in the aforesaid accident.
3. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal has observed that the alleged accident is stated to have taken place on 05.01.2008 at about 12.45 noon. According to the Tribunal, the fact of accident was reported by one Ashwath Shetty, S/o Venkatesh Shetty, who is said to have witnessed the incident. According to him, a Santro Car, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, came and hit the claimant resulting in certain injuries to him. In that behalf, a complaint was lodged by him, which is at Ex.P-2, based on that, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-1. However, 4 subsequently it is seen that charge sheet is filed on Maruti Car bearing No.KL-14/G-636, which is totally different from the car, said to have caused the accident as per Exs.P-1 and P-2. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal did not believe the version of accident and proceeded to hold that the Claim Petition is not sustainable in the eye of law.
4. On going through the judgment impugned, it is clearly seen that the reasons given by the Tribunal appears to be just, proper and cogent in the facts and circumstances of the case. When the claimant has not produced any documents to demonstrate that at the relevant time of accident, the vehicle involved is Maruti Car bearing registration No.KL-14/G-636 and not KA-19/N-9341, question of accepting Claim Petition and awarding compensation would not arise. Hence, the Tribunal has dismissed the Claim Petition filed by the appellant herein, which cannot be reversed in this appeal. 5
5. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed confirming the Judgment and Award dated 09.02.2010 passed by the Tribunal in dismissing the Claim Petition filed by the appellant herein in MVC No.306/2008 on the file of the MACT, D.K., Mangalore.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
AGV.