Karnataka High Court
Sri Parashuram @ Parasappa vs Veeranagouda on 22 April, 2010
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Ix)'
AGE MAJOR?
OCC: BUSINESS OWNER OF JEEP
BC: NO.KA~36~€»9{)
R/O. MPG COLONY HEGGASANAHALLE, '
TQ. 81 DIST: RAICHUR
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE co.
DAND: CHOUK _ * jg
RAICHUR .. RA:sPDND.:sNTs
(By Sri. SHIVANANDA PATH, FDA R3: -- 1
R1 & R2 SERVED} -- f '
MFA FILED U/E§._1"_z"3{1j¥ 019: my ACT ADA1Ni:'s:r THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 2162'7,/Q6 . PAssE_D 1N MVC No.79/04 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRL.'CIV_i¥.L':}"U'DGEL}C.JM, IAD<1Ac:'T,..R¢A1cHDR, DISMISSING
THE CLAIM pE:TmQri~J. FOR COMFE:'N.SA'1'IOI$I,
THIS a_VAPPDAL!1:':Q1\}:1VND.v:ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE -~ ..§DLLDw:A;D:
';T'n.e --.afpp:e1:1£1nts had filed a claim petition under
Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging that on
;'g_t;heir minor daughter Kum.Bujjamrna @
was playing in front of their house at Malibad
V' that time; a jeep bearing registratien NO.KA~36/M~
came in a zigzag manner, driven rashly and
negligentiy arid dashed, due to Which, shes sustained fatal
injuries and emraute to the hospital, died. The vehiclé
X
3
belenged ti: the 2?"? respendent, was driven by the i8?
respondent and had been insured by the 3"'; respondent.'e._V_
2. Respondent No.3 i.e., insurance eorn_tii'a;r1j§:',' Written statement and Contested the raised 3 issues for consideration, '»Qn:_'2e3{9.2.OQ5'.' '}Li??"%' petitioner deposed as PW}. C*ne.._VNagap}da/V AV.a1I.eged to have witnessed the aeeident,V___ti%as_ as PW2. Exhibits P1 to P5 were efifidence. F or the insurance Company' one efits as RW1 and insuranee " exhibit R1.
Considering..the'~.e§ride:n_ee.spit'with reference to the rival eontentienstv :1ea:rned._.'1nember of the MACT has answered issiies I an_.dA*2" in the negative and as a result, vhas d1s:t3.issiedVv%_the"petmen. The petitioners have filed this ap.p'eai." _ Yeii, learned advocate appearing for .IE.'_the_app€1i&iit, contended that, the tribunal has committed an:jerrer"'A_«in holding that no aeeident has taken piaee and
-the eiairnants have failed to prove their case. Learned eouhsel contended that the tribune} has adopted ' technical approach to the matter, _'¥,V7h'i_Ch Eiesvd Ru fllegai dismissa} of the claim petiti0n;'eand"henee iifiterfefetfciei is called for. _ V _ .
4. Sri.Shivananda Patil, ledéufhed adveeéte afgpearing for the 3rd respondent, ortthe ccsritended that, the claim is false and had made an illegai attempt tev and enrich themselves -...cc:.1r{s'e'1VV_ cchtended that the occurrence of the accident ST? respondent to pay the compensatiemLs.mcurtt"dsnd: the MACT was justified in passing' ;thee..impu»gt1ed jtidgment/ award. Learned counsel zmaide, .'d'suh§fiin's'siQns in support of the findings and in the impugned judgment / award.
5';«.._Keepi:1g in Vi€W' the rival contentions, the point for .. , U eofi'e§djeratief1 is, '.E;§§*;?{i;3ther the appeilants have proved that their H V'V:s"e--dttugfzter KumBtgfiama @ Nczrasamma me: with a motor nehzicie accident involving rash and ''= 'V hearing No.KA~36/it/14890: SL£SKCEifl€d:fClf{f_:Z it
6. PWl in his affidavit eridencehaa test.iiiecdv,that'; daughter was playing in front houS"e~._on -l8.."§{§.2t}O3 at about 8.30 a.m,, respo_:1dentAe_.No;,i_ "'auddenlyj drove the vehicle in a rash and dashed against his daughter, which fact though one Nagappa. On family members performed and last rituals of his daughterihy and that the accident occurred ori..V_accountA:-tjoft and negligent driving of the jeep, by itslldriiirere" Throiigh him, the police records such «as FlR;t;fhar"ge sheet.,_IMV report, etc., have been marked as "exhibits P1'«to..P5,_ However, in the cross examination, he on the date of accident, he was at Raichur. _U hearing about the accident, he returned to AVillag"ev._.i;vhich is about 7 lens. from Raichur. He has A that, he knew that in ease an accident takes a complaint has to be lodged. He has admitted that 6 pestmortern of the deceased was net clone and that the eernplaint was not lodged with the police on the of aeeielent. T he evidence of PWI makes it clear th'at; not witnessed the aeeieent and he has no as how the accident Occurred. Hence, his.te€riCltenee'---ESVnet material help for deciding whether the aeeidersttllingneeltiorl occurred, resulting in death of V '7. PW2 Nagappav he knows Parashuram - claimant lhlgleresamma since they are resiclente testified in the affidavit tha,_t_,V 6.30 31.111. when he was near the ejeep bearing No.KA-O6/M- 690 came and in a rash and negligent vmanner,-".:.driXVen by"Vee_res3h @ Veeranagouda and dashed to Nara,ea1nn:.al>~ldeiughter of Parashuramt The driver 0f the jeep .tli.<ii"tlnoVt the Vehicle and he ran away. The said lfQ'a.rasam:nvéi";_fell down unconsciously and later he Came to she died due to the head injuries. However, in the erase examinatient he has admitted that, he is aware l 3:» Ex /5", told that she slipped and lost consciousness. left the place, his daughter died atabotit -lf"i'h'ep V funeral and last rites were perforinedlllat 18.9.2003, However, he has'-.:,,:l:fU.rther stated onli 23.9.2003, he learnt frorn that of:-:.s.slf2oos at about 6.30 am. his daughter front of the house was hit hythe m,;;t:5irr No.KA-36/M» 690 and she. and died. Upon learning informed his brother Marappaslg ~l lodge a complaint and accordingly, V the complaint. The _eomp1ai_ht having received on 25.9.2003, a case has lnibeen Crime No.112/2003, F IR has been sent to PC No.85 of Yadgir police station at "'8.00 The police, after investigation "iii.-Ti,"V'h,_ave pfiledv.,__if:harge sheet against the 151 respondent for punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. lg' petitioner, in his further statement ade before the _l4_irivestigating officer on 27.92003, has s ted that, on i w,% 27'.§.2OG3 at about £0.00 a,In. the pciice wanted' Show the place where Narasarnma was buriedajndvize Went aiong with the police and panehas thieehigftait found that his daughter's gratf'e.4_yard"x§'fas open body of his daughter was not"v'Vfo:t113d. him, some forest animals the body.
9. The Motor the vehicle bearing;'i\fo"A}§;iX--3t3/1';/14590'don"wi€7::9#2OO3 at about 5.30 p.m. in the no damages to the vehicle. 1 'V _ _
10. PW? who'a;hege.d13zA_:iévit11essed the accident has not lodged the pohce According to PW2, within one 'hour of_itheeA.accide:n_t:,V he iinforrned PW} about the accident :"and the :'inju'ries sustained by Narasamrna, whereas, was at Raiehur on 18.9.2003 and he E""'vreturnetd tc.-hte3'..-Vjillage which is about 7 kms. away, in the ...d.d'_j':v.-vaftemoon'; upon hearing about the accident. Though the aecident is stated to have taken place on 18.920082 . compiaint was lodged oniy on 25,9.2OC33. There is lot of 9:
R:
E8 variance between the statements ef PVVS. 1 version of PVJ1 is totally contrary' tohthep eo::':e'fite'_'ef "' P1 and his further statement made IE'-.€f&.:'e 'A
10. If PW2 had witneseed«--..theVddalleged eVae::;d.eht_i'3ahd.:':c» Narasamma sustained any iaaa of motor Vehicle accident, he xvoeddfhaifde complaint immediately after the to him, he informed the an hour and that PW1 -to the hospital. PW2 appears "a purpose of the ease' The presence of alleged accident spot is doubtful. t .--
11;.'-Tho1uighA"the ddpolwice filed charge sheet against 'f_re'spoficderi*£d'e thedmidhvestigation is totally faulty. Police hot body of the alleged accident victim; No hospitai reeefd_e'fwere produced to Show that the deceased "'Ted.-TiV"V'<«hVa»dAbeeri vheought dead to the hospital. T he complaint was jdpafter about a vszeek, from the date ef the afieged '*--.aceident. Postmortem of the bedy of deceased Narasamma e /"
.e was not earried out Charge sheet has been filed. In View of the above eireumstaneeef"'the.:"poiiee records as at EX.Pi to P6 are not and appellants have failed to_.e_stahii.sh-._thatp.»'t'?oe was caused by respondent No';-i?"~by dfiVirig".=tht3 uifehieie it which belong to responde'i1.tt was by the 3rd respondent. A false bee'ti.V"_*io'dged before the MACT, The ieagxgigivi. after noticing material eViderioe_««.. appreciating the same, petition, holding that the C1aiII7tE1.I1'CS4' establish that Bujjamma @ Narasamma,'d_ied_ on aecoiiiét of the injuries sustained in a ifoad aeeideent, allegedly occurred on 18.9.2003, in ?.ini.r'ohziVi"ig the aforesaid jeep. A p T committed by the learned Member of it the irfiatiswering issues 1 and 2 in the negative. 'A evidetiee has been correctly appreciated and the it "-fitidings'.-'recorded have the support of the material evidence 7i"'--a.vv_ai_1ab1e on record. In the eircumsta ees, no exception as 2/ 5 can be taken :0 the firzdings recorded in judgment/award by the learned Member of the ' For the foregoing reasons, apspé9;'r;'$ '::Ie\%0_iT§ii'».ofV1:ierfi; and shall stand dismissed:
Though exemplary c0sts' <_:_ét:3§ b€AiH1:pGS€Ei'Aét:gainS§; therp' appellants for the false claim tfie MACT and before this court, I <f1€<fiine'--t0 Keeping in Vi€W the fact that the appellants a;re.,.v§11ag¢1%ps agriculturists and appear to hé1ve}3I:'Je_€n.V iniégxuidpéd. 3%"
3$§§§ Cm/~