Karnataka High Court
Smt. Haseenabanu W/O Saifuddin ... vs Maqbool Ahamad Fakruddin Killedar on 9 October, 2012
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.Manohar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
®
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 9 T H DAY OF OCTOBER 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. MANOHAR
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.23432/2011 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. Smt.Haseenabanu
W/o.Saifuddin Kabatoor
Age: 26 years,
Occ: Household work,
R/o. Jade, Tq: Sorab,
Now R/at: KCC Bank Road,
Medar Oni, Dharwad.
2. Sumanbanu D/o.Saifuddin Kabatur
Age: 4 years, Minor, represented by her
Natural mother as next friend and
Minor guardian i.e., petitioner No.1
Smt.Haseenabanu W/o.Saifuddin Kabatur.
3. Mumtaz Begaum Khamohiddin Kabatur
Age: 56 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. Jade, Tq: Sorab,
2
Now R/at: KCC Bank Road,
Medar Oni, Dharwad.
...Appellants
(By Sri R.H.Angadi, Advocate.)
A N D:
1. Maqbool Ahamad Fakruddin Killedar
Age: Major, Occ: Driver of the
Motor bike No.KA-27/R-8140,
R/o. Near Kalabhavi, Hangal,
Tq: Hangal.
2. Manjuruddin S/o.Jalauddin Inamdar
Owner of the Motor bike
No.KA-27/R-8140,
R/o. Near Kalabhavi, Hangal,
Tq: Hangal.
3. The Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Sujata Complex, P.B.Road, Hubli.
...Respondents
(By Sri S.K.Kayakmath, Advocate, for R.3,
R.1 and R.2 are served.)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under
Section 173(1) of the M.V.Act, against the judgment
and award dated 1.6.2011, passed in MVC
No.165/2010, on the file of the Presiding Officer,
Fast Track Court-I, Dharwad, dismissing the petition
filed under section 166 of MV Act, 1988.
This Appeal coming on for final hearing this
day, K.L.Manjunath, J, delivered the following
judgment:
3
JUDGMENT
The appellants are challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award passed by the Fast Track Court, Dharwad, dated 1.6.2011, in MVC No.165/2010, wherein the claim petition of the appellant has been dismissed.
2. The facts leading to this appeal are as hereunder:
The appellants are the legal heirs of one Saifuddin, who is said to have been died in a road traffic accident occurred on 9.11.2009. According to them, he was a pillion rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA-15/L-1566, which was driven by one Parashuram Doddakurubar when they were near the forest of Chikkeri Hosalli village at about 10-00 p.m., another motorcycle bearing No.KA-27/R-8140 driven by the 1st respondent was coming in the same direction. The 1 s t respondent in order to overtake the 4 vehicle on which the deceased was travelling, dashed against the said motorcycle. As a result of which Saifuddin succumbed to the injuries. Five days later a complaint was lodged by the rider of the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling and based on the same a charge sheet was filed. Thereafter the claim petition was lodged.
3. Before lodging a complaint the Hangal Police have registered a case in UDR No.31/2009. It was contended by the respondents that the vehicle was not involved in the accident and Saifuddin did not die in a road traffic accident occurred on 9.11.2009 and that the case is cooked up one for illegal gain in collusion with the owner of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-27/R-8140. It is also contended that the said vehicle was not involved in the accident and Hangal Police had registered a case in UDR No.31/2009 on 10.11.2010 and postmortem was conducted.
5
4. Based on the above pleadings, the 1st appellant was examined as PW.1. She relied upon Ex.P.1 to P.6. An officer of the 3rd respondent insurance company is examined as RW.1 and he relied upon Ex.R.1 to R.8.
5. The learned member of the Tribunal considering the case registered by the Hangal Police in UDR No.31/2009 dated 10.11.2009, as the complaint is lodged on 14.11.2009 by the friend of the deceased i.e., Parashuram Doddakurubar, disbelieving the investigation and the charge sheet, came to the conclusion that the entire criminal case is cooked up to favour the claimants. Accordingly the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased did not die in a road traffic accident. Therefore the present appeal is filed.
6. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we do not see any reasons to differ from the findings of the Tribunal for the following reasons. 6
7. Admittedly Saifuddin died on 9.11.2009 at 10-00 p.m. If really he had sustained injury on account of the road traffic accident, the complainant would have lodged the complaint on the same day or at least he would have informed the villagers and the police while shifting body of the deceased and if he had informed the police, immediately after the accident, there was no need or necessity for the police to register the UDR case and conduct the postmortem. Admittedly the alleged rider namely the complainant Parashuram Doddakurubar is a close friend of the deceased. When he is a close friend of the deceased and if a friend has died in a road traffic accident, and it is the duty of the rider of the motorcycle to shift the body of the deceased to the village and to inform the police or to the general public. It is not even informed by him to the family members of the deceased. This is the conduct of the complainant Parashuram Doddakurubar and in addition to that as per the mahazar the dead body 7 was found in a canal. If the incident has taken place due to the road traffic accident near forest, the body of the deceased could not have found in a canal. Therefore it is clear that four days later in order to get compensation the entire case is cooked up by the parties and a false complaint has been lodged by the complainant Parashuram Doddakurubar. When the insurance company has denied the accident, it was the duty of the appellant to examine Parashuram Doddakurubar as a witness to prove the accident on their behalf. Without doing so they want this Court to award compensation based on the criminal records created and concocted by the police at the instance of the complainant.
8. Considering the background of this case we feel it appropriate to direct the Director General of Police to hold an enquiry against the Officers, who have investigated and filed a false charge sheet as if the deceased Saifuddin died in a road traffic 8 accident, when his dead body was found on a canal on the night of 9.11.2009.
9. Therefore we are of the view that the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the claim petition. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
10. The registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Director General of Police and the Superintendent of Police of Haveri District to find out the person who was working as Circle Inspector of Police or Sub-Inspector of Police, who have conducted the investigation and filed the false charge sheet and to take action against them in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Mrk/-