Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1937 (KAR)

Salamon v. Devaraj

2019-09-03

P.G.M.PATIL, S.N.SATYANARAYANA

body2019
JUDGMENT : P.G.M. PATIL, J. 1. The claimant in MVC No.64/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalghatagi, has come up in this appeal impugning the judgment dated 2/1/2019. 2. The claimant contended before the Tribunal that on 22/9/2011 at about 9.00 p.m. while he was going as pillion rider in Activa Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-25/EE-7145 on Hubballi-Karwar road near. Inchanalli cross, the rider of motorcycle drove the same in a great speed and negligent manner, thereby lost control over the motorcycle and he fell down from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to Balagi Institute of Neuroscience and Trauma Hospital, Hubballi and where he has taken treatment as an inpatient and now he has become disabled due to injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, he filed claim petition against the owner and insurer of the motorcycle stated supra claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal through their counsel and filed statement of objections separately, wherein they have denied the very accident and involvement of the motorbike belonging to respondent No.1 and that he drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Respondent No.2-Insurance company has contended that claim petition is false, frivolous and vexatious and that the alleged vehicle is not at all involved in the accident. On the other hand, initially case was registered against unknown lorry which was never traced and after six months, from the date of accident, the police have filed false charge sheet against respondent No.1. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues. 5. The claimant got examined as PW-1 in support of his claim and got marked 84 documents as Exs.P1 to 84. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 got examined RW1 and RW2 and got marked 7 documents as Ex.R1 to R7. 6. The learned member of the Tribunal after hearing both the parties dismissed the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at the stage of admission. We have perused the entire records. 8. It is the case of the claimant that on the date of accident, he was pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-25/EE-7145, belonging to respondent No.1 who was rider of the said vehicle. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at the stage of admission. We have perused the entire records. 8. It is the case of the claimant that on the date of accident, he was pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-25/EE-7145, belonging to respondent No.1 who was rider of the said vehicle. However, when the complaint was filed in respect of the said accident as per Ex.P2 and FIR, Spot Panchanama, Mahazar, IMV report would goes to show that case was registered against the driver of unknown lorry and not against the motorcycle belonging to respondent No.1 stated supra. It is further noticed that subsequently, after expiry of six months from the date of accident Kalaghatagi police have filed charge sheet against respondent No.1 as per Ex.P6 involving his vehicle in the alleged accident. 9. Burden was on the petitioner to prove that he sustained injuries in the road traffic accident which occurred on 22/9/2011 on Karawar-Hubli road involving Activa Honda bearing registration No.KA- 25/EE-7145 belonging to respondent No.1. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 disputed the accident itself. The claimant has got examined himself in support of his claim petition and no other witnesses were examined. 10. On the other hand, respondent No.2 got examined RW-1-K.Shamasundar and respondent No.1 himself was examined as RW-2, wherein they have denied the involvement of the vehicle belonging to respondent No.1 in the alleged accident. The evidence on record clearly goes to show that though the case was registered against unknown lorry, subsequently, vehicle belonging to respondent No.1 who is the close relative of the claimant and petitioner was implicated and charge sheet was filed against him only in order to claim compensation against respondent Nos.1 and 2. 11. Under such circumstances, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove the involvement of the said vehicle belonging to respondent No.1 and that he sustained injuries in the motorcycle accident involving the said vehicle. The documents produced at Exs.P1 to P6 goes against the case of the claimant that the said accident was caused by respondent No.1 involving his Activa Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-25/EE-7145. 12. Under these circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the claimant has miserably failed to prove that he sustained injuries in the road traffic accident involving the vehicle belonging to respondent No.1, namely, Activa Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-25/EE-7145. 12. Under these circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the claimant has miserably failed to prove that he sustained injuries in the road traffic accident involving the vehicle belonging to respondent No.1, namely, Activa Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-25/EE-7145. Therefore, findings recorded by the Tribunal needs no interference. Appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.