Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 203 (KAR)

Gurappa v. Goudappagouda

2008-03-26

B.S.PATIL

body2008
JUDGMENT B.S. Patil, J.— This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 11.5.2006, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jamkhandi in M.V.C. No. 260 of 2004. 2. The appellant herein is the husband of deceased Kasturi who is alleged to have suffered fatal injuries in an accident that occurred on 4.12.2002 while she was proceeding on a motor bike bearing registration No. KA 29-2311 as a pillion rider. She succumbed to the injuries in the hospital on 5.12.2002. Her husband filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 11,00,000. It was contended before the Tribunal that the rider of the motor cycle rode the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and caused the grievous injuries when the motor cycle fell into a ditch. 3. Claimant examined himself as PW 1 and one witness by name Fakiragouda Ninganagouda Patil was examined as PW 2. Exhs. P1 to P16 were produced and got marked. No evidence was led in by the respondents though they contested the claim. A specific issue to the effect "whether the claimant proves that one Kasturi died on account of the accident due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle" came to be framed. 4. The respondent insurance company denied the factum of such an accident taking place involving the motor cycle and resulting in the death of Kasturi. 5. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence on record both oral and documentary, has come to the conclusion that the claimant has failed to establish the accident involving the motor cycle and the resultant fatal injuries to the deceased. Hence the claim petition was dismissed. To arrive at such a conclusion, the Tribunal has placed reliance on two important circumstances, namely (i) non-filing of any complaint before the police alleging negligence or recklessness on the part of the rider of the motor cycle, (ii) the mention made in the letter written by the doctor to the police vide Exh. P15 stating that the deceased sustained head injury as she slipped from the steps. 6. The letter, Exh. P15, is addressed to the P.S.I., Katkol Police Station, Katkol. P15 stating that the deceased sustained head injury as she slipped from the steps. 6. The letter, Exh. P15, is addressed to the P.S.I., Katkol Police Station, Katkol. Though the claimant-appellant herein contended before Claims Tribunal that he had later on filed a private complaint alleging that police did not register his complaint and that the death occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by its rider, the Tribunal has not accepted the said version. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the death did not occur in an accident involving the motor cycle. Though learned Counsel sought to rely upon the evidence of the claimant in this regard to highlight the fact that the death occurred in the accident involving the motor cycle, on careful perusal of the evidence of the witnesses examined and the documents produced, I am of the clear view that the claimant failed to prove that the death of Kasturi occurred due to accident involving the motor cycle. The Tribunal was right and justified in recording a finding that the claimant had failed to establish the said fact. 8. The absence of any complaint being lodged at an earliest point of time and the specific mention being made before the doctor regarding cause of injuries showing that it occurred due to the deceased slipping from the steps and suffering head injuries makes the situation abundantly clear. The version sought to be made out before the Tribunal stating that when Kasturi was travelling on the motor bike as a pillion rider, the motor bike fell into a ditch due to rash and negligent driving of the motor bike, is a clear case of improved version in order to fix the liability on the insurance company. Learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. No illegality or perversity can be found in the reasoning, and conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. 9. Hence, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.