Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1230 (KAR)

B. Vijaya Kumar v. M. B. Mallikarjuna

2011-12-19

S.N.SATYANARAYANA

body2011
Judgment :- S.N. SATYANARAYANA, J: 1. Claimant in MVC no.55/2007 on the file of MACT, Davanagere, has come up in this appeal impugning the Judgment date 13/08/2010 passed therein dismissing his Claim Petition. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: Appellant herein, claimant before the Tribunal contends that on 11/09/2006at about 1.15 p.m., while he was travelling from Chitradurga in Kashi Vishwanatha Bus bearing No. KA- 17/A- 2871, the driver of the bus on the way near Bhavihal Village requested the claimant to check the left wheel of the bus. Accordingly the claimant got down to check the wheel. At that time, the driver, respondent No.3 before the Tribunal drove the bus in a negligent manner resulting in the tyre of the bus running over claimant and he sustaining injuries all over the body. It is his case that immediately he was shifted to Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere, where he was treated as inpatient from 11/09-/2006 and subsequently he was shifted to C.G. Hospital, Davanagrere, wherein he took treatment from 12/09/2006 to 12/10/2006. It is also his case that he has spent a sum of Rs. 70,000/- towards, medical treatment and he is still under treatment. The claimant further contend that prior to accident he was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month by doing the work of bus cleaner, due to accident he is totally disabled and he has sought for compensation in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. 3. In this said proceedings, respondent No.2--Insurance Company entered appearance, filed statement of objections denying the fact of accidents. The tribunal after framing the issues recorded evidence. On behalf of the claimant, he adduced evidence as P.W.1 and in support of his case, he has examined the doctor, P.W.2 --Dr. Ghanate Madhukar (so far as the evidence of this doctor is concerned, all Courts will have to look into it with circumspection regarding correctness or genuineness of the same as it is observed by this Court in several Judgement, he is in the habit of giving evidence in all false and frivolous cases) and another person, P.W.3 –K.T. Basavarajappa, said to be a witness to the said accident. In support of his case, he has produced and marked 33 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-33. 4. In support of his case, he has produced and marked 33 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-33. 4. So far as the respondents are concerned, they examined three witnesses, RW.1 – Hanumanthappa, RW.2 –Prasananna Kumar and R.W.3 –Dr. G. Shivaprakash and produced in all seven documents and marked them as Exs.R-1 and R-2 and another five documents. Exs.R-1 and R-2 are repeated twice. 5. The Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to the conclusion that the claim is false and frivolous. It is observed by the Tribunal that the claimant while getting admitted into the hospital, has given a statement before the doctor, P.W.2 that he fell from a bullock cart resulting in injuries, which he has suffered as observed by the said doctor. Subsequently it appears that the claimant putforth a different story that he was a cleaner in Kashi Vishwanatha Bus bearing No.KA17/A-2871 on a monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- and on the relevant date at about 3.30 p.m., near Bhavihal Village the driver of the bus requested him to get down and check the left wheel of the bus and at that time the accident took place. 6. On going through the findings of the Tribunal, it is clearly seen that the accident which has resulted in injuries to claimant is as stated by him before R.W.3 at the time of his admission to the hospital, i.e., falling from bullock card. It is seen that subsequently there is collision between the claimant, police officials, P.W.2, Dr. Ghanate Madhukar and others in trying to bring the same within the ambit of motor accident, so that they could stake claim for compensation. 7. The whole exercise appears to be fraudulent in nature, where there is no cause of action they have tried to create one. Fortunately, the Tribunal after considering the evidence seen this exercise and has rightly observed on appreciating all the evidence available on record and dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant herein. 8. After going through the judgement impugned and the reasoning given therein by the Tribunal, it is seen that there is neither illegality no irregularity in appreciation of pleading and evidence available on record by the Tribunal and the finding given is reasonable and acceptable with reference to the documents available on record. 8. After going through the judgement impugned and the reasoning given therein by the Tribunal, it is seen that there is neither illegality no irregularity in appreciation of pleading and evidence available on record by the Tribunal and the finding given is reasonable and acceptable with reference to the documents available on record. Therefore this Court find that there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the well reasoned jedgement passed by the Tribunal in MVC No. 55/2007 (Old No. 992/2006) on the file of MACT, Davanagere. 9. Accordingly the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.