Karnataka High Court
Kumar. Shubham S/O Shrikant Patil vs Shri. Siddalingappa S/O Gurappa ... on 5 September, 2017
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
M.F.A. NO.24953/2011 (MV)
BETWEEN:
KUMAR. SHUBHAM S/O SHRIKANT PATIL
AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: PACHAPUR, TQ. HUKKERI,
DIST: BELGAUM. SINCE MINOIR, REP. BY
HIS NATURAL FATHER DR. SHRIKANT
S/O BASANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR,
R/O: PACHAPUR, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.HANUMANTH R LATUR, ADV.)
AND :
1. SHRI. SIDDALINGAPPA
S/O GURAPPA BENNUR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: NANDIKESHWAR, TQ: BADAMI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH KALADAGI ROAD, BAGALKOT,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, RAMDEV GALLI,
BELGAUM
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.G.GADGOLI.ADV. FOR R2; R1 SERVED)
:2:
THIS APPEAL IS FILED MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF
MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
12.07.2010 PASSED IN MVC.NO.2344/2007 ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE &
MEMBER ADDL. M.A.C.T, BAILHONGAL, DISMISSING THE
PETITION FILED U/SEC.166 OF I.M.V ACT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THIS COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the claimant in M.V.C. No.2344/2007 on the file of Addl. M.A.C.T., Bailhongal. The appellant is a minor represented by his father. The appellant sustained injuries to head in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 02.04.2003. The appellant, his father and some others were traveling in a car to go to Kukanur village from Pachchapure. On the way the car struck. The appellant and his father got down from the car. When the father was repairing the car, the appellant was standing behind the car and at that time a TATA 407 goods tempo bearing Reg. No.KA-29/3237 coming in the opposite direction of the road and driven rashly and negligently hit the appellant. The appellant was treated at K.L.E. Hospital, Belgaum. The police registered a complaint on 17.04.2003 and investigated into the matter and filed charge sheet :3: against the driver. It appears that a claim petition, M.V.C. No.2139/2005 was filed before Additional M.A.C.T., Saundatti, and another claim petition was also filed at Addl. M.A.C.T., Bailhongal. The claim petition, M.V.C. No.2139/2005 pending on the file of Additional M.A.C.T., Saundatti, was withdrawn later on.
2. The tribunal assessed the compensation to be payable to the injured at Rs.1,02,400/-, but dismissed the claim petition for the reason that there was delay in lodging the complaint before the police, and therefore, this appeal has been filed questioning the correctness of dismissing the claim petition.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that mere delay in registration of complaint cannot be a good ground for rejecting the claim petition. The complaint discloses the reasons for delay in making the complaint. Even in the wound certificate issued by K.L.E. Hospital, Belgaum, the history is clearly written as, 'hit by tempo'. The said wound certificate also discloses the fact that the appellant was taken to the hospital immediately after the :4: accident. The police investigated into the matter and filed charge sheet against the driver of the tempo. Without taking into consideration all these materials, the learned tribunal committed an error in rejecting the claim petition. Therefore, he argued for allowing the appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that without assigning any reason the claim petition filed at Saundatti was withdrawn. The tribunal has noticed the same in its award. Therefore, the claim petition at Bailhongal tribunal was not maintainable. He also argues that the tribunal has come to a right conclusion by doubting the happening of the accident itself. Delay does matter when the accident itself is disputed. Therefore, he argues for sustaining the impugned award.
5. With regard to the withdrawal of the claim petition by the claimant/appellant filed by him at M.A.C.T., Saundatti, it has to be stated that though specific reason was not given by the appellant for withdrawing that petition, it can be noticed that in connection with the same accident two claim petitions were filed at different places. Thinking :5: that two claim petitions cannot be prosecuted parallelly, he might have withdrawn the petition at Saundatti. Therefore, this withdrawal cannot be given any importance to hold that the second claim petition filed at Bailhongal was not maintainable.
6. With regard to delay, it is to be stated that when there is explanation in the complaint itself for the delay, it can be accepted by the Court. Mere delay should not result in rejecting a claim for just compensation. Ex.P-45 is the certified copy of the F.I.R. and complaint. In this complaint it is clearly written that the complainant's son had been admitted to the hospital. The complainant was fully involved in getting his son treated. He was not in a position to think that he should file a complaint with regard to the accident, and therefore, there was delay. The reason, thus, given in the complaint can be accepted. It is quite natural that any father will undergo from mental turmoil when his son meets with an accident. So it appears that the tribunal has not considered this reason for delay. Even in the wound certificate marked as per Ex.P-3, history is clearly mentioned as 'hit by tempo'. The tribunal was expected to take a :6: decision with regard to the accident by considering all these documents. Therefore, in my opinion, the tribunal has utterly committed an error in rejecting the claim petition on the ground of delay.
7. The award discloses that the tribunal also assessed the compensation payable to the claimant. It has arrived at a figure of Rs.1,02,400/-. This amount can be sustained. In the light of these reasons, the following :
ORDER i. Appeal is allowed with costs. ii. The judgment and award dated 12.07.2010 passed in M.V.C. No.2344/2007 on the file of Additional M.A.C.T., Bailhongal, is set aside to the extent of finding on issue No.1. iii. As held by the tribunal, the appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,02,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE hnm