Karnataka High Court
Janakamma vs Mohan Kumar on 16 January, 2020
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R. Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
M.F.A. No.7599/2016 (MV)
BETWEEN:
Janakamma,
W/o Siddalingachar,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at Yogihalli,
Dubba Hobli,
Hassan Taluk - 573 201. ... Appellant
(By Sri. N.S. Bhat, Advocate)
AND:
1. Mohan Kumar,
S/o Ningegowda,
Major,
R/at Rashmi Nilaya,
M. Hosakoppalu Village,
Hassan City - 573 201.
2. The Manager,
Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Ltd.,
363, Sri. Hari Complex,
Seethavilas Road,
Mysuru - 570 001. ... Respondents
(By Sri.Naveen Aradhy S for Smt. H.R.Renuka, Advocates for R2
R1 served)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against
the judgment and award dated 14.07.2014 passed in
MVC.No.1314/2007 on the file of the member, Additional
MACT, Hassan, dismissing the claim petition for compensation.
-2-
This MFA coming on for Further Orders this day, the
court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
This matter is coming up for hearing on IA No.1/2016 for condonation of delay of 844 days in filing the appeal. With consent of the learned counsels on both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The appellant was before this Court on earlier occasion in MFA No.8929/2011. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition rejecting the claim of the petitioner/ appellant, not being satisfied with the evidence on record to come to a conclusion that the alleged accident had occurred due to the motor vehicle accident involving the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-13-R-9747. The matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration.
3. After remand, the complainant examined herself as PW1 and produced Exs.P1 to P11 in support of her contentions that she suffered injuries on account of -3- accident on 03.03.2007 at about 7.00 p.m, involving the motor vehicle bearing registration No.KA-13-R-9747 which belongs to the first respondent.
4. On going through the evidence on record, the Tribunal has observed that PW3, who is the husband of the complainant had stated that after the accident, the injured was taken to Chanarayapatna Hospital. No evidence is forthcoming supporting to satisfy with the contentions that the injured was taken to Channarayapatna Hospital. The wound certificate produced by the petitioner in Ex.P5 reveals that the injured was first seen on 04.07.2007 at about 9.45 p.m i.e., on the next date of accident, at Hassan Government Hospital. There is no endorsement in the wound certificate regarding the treatment taken by the injured, at Channarayapatna Hospital before she was treated at Hassan Government Hospital.
5. It has also been observed that there is a delay in taking the treatment. It was also noticed by the Tribunal that in Ex.R3, it was mentioned as "Referred from C.R. Patna". The Tribunal has observed that if the endorsement -4- is to be believed, the petitioner would have got the wound certificate from Channarayapatna Government Hospital. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why the report of the alleged road accident was not informed to the concerned officer of the Channarayapatna jurisdictional police or concerned police. The Tribunal has rightly observed that these discrepancies in the evidence create doubt to accept the contention of the claimant that the injuries sustained by the complainant was on account of accident that occurred on 03.03.2007 at about 7.00 p.m on NH 48, B.M. Road at Bargwar hand post due to the rash and negligent driving of the two wheeler vehicle bearing registration No.KA-13-R-9747.
6. The Tribunal has also taken notice of a decision of this Court reported in 2014 Part I TAC 111 (Kar) wherein it was held that merely because the driver pleaded guilty before the criminal Court and paid fine, it is not a sufficient ground for the Tribunal to accept the same and allow the claim petition. It was also observed in any number of decisions of this Court that if there is -5- inconsistency in the evidence to prove involvement of the vehicle in the alleged accident, the objection is to be appreciated keeping in view the inconsistency in mind.
7. Moreover the explanation offered by the appellant for the delay of 844 days in filing the appeal is not satisfactory. It is stated in the affidavit that the appellant was suffering from Chikanguniya and was taking Ayurvedic treatment and therefore there was a delay in filing the appeal. No evidence has been placed on record to satisfy the contentions of the appellant.
8. Taking over all facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, this Court is of the considered opinion that the delay cannot be condoned and consequently the application seeking condonation of delay as well as the appeal stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE LL