Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1985 (KAR)

Gananatha Bhandary v. Mohini Jayaram

2020-10-05

NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

body2020
JUDGMENT Nataraj Rangaswamy, J. - This is a claimants' appeal challenging the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition. 2. The claimant, an employee in a Restaurant, alleged that when he was walking on the road from the Circuit house to Bejai, a motor cycle bearing registration No. KA 19 S 2664 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. As a result, the claimant suffered injuries namely periorbital oedima and swelling over the right maxilla which were stated to be grievous in nature. In ordinary parlance, the claimant suffered injuries over the right eyebrow and right thumb and the claimant underwent treatment at City Hospital Research and Diagnostic Centre for six days. The claimant had spent an amount of Rs.26,054/- towards medical treatment. The Tribunal noticed the fact that a complaint was lodged by the claimant with the police after two days of the accident and therefore, the Tribunal held that there were chances of manipulation of records and therefore, it held that the petitioner had not proved the involvement of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal relied upon Ex.P10 which was the case sheet which indicated that the claimant had skidded and fallen off from the two wheeler and held that there was a complete deviation from the above, when the claim petition was filed. Thus, the Tribunal rejected the claim petition on the ground that the claimant was not able to prove the involvement of the vehicle and that the injuries sustained were due to the road traffic accident involving the vehicle in question. 3. The claimant is in appeal and he contended that Ex.P1(a) was the complaint lodged on 18.09.2007 which disclosed the involvement of the vehicle in question bearing registration No.KA 19 S 2664 in the accident that occurred on 16.09.2007. He also relied upon the wound certificate which indicated that the claimant had suffered injuries in a road traffic accident at 8.30 pm., on 16.09.2007. Ex.P5 is the intimation report in Form No.54 under Section 160 of MV Act which also disclose the involvement of the vehicle in question. The discharge summary as per Ex.P6 would also show that the claimant was involved in a road traffic accident that occurred on 16.09.2007 at 8.30 pm., 4. Ex.P5 is the intimation report in Form No.54 under Section 160 of MV Act which also disclose the involvement of the vehicle in question. The discharge summary as per Ex.P6 would also show that the claimant was involved in a road traffic accident that occurred on 16.09.2007 at 8.30 pm., 4. Under the circumstances, there was no material on record for the Tribunal to hold that the claimant had filed a false claim petition contending that the vehicle in question was involved. The material on record would not disclose that the claimant had fallen off from the vehicle that he was riding and he had sustained injuries. The Tribunal relied upon Ex.P10 to hold that the claimant had stated in the case sheet that the claimant fell off the motor cycle. However, the lower Court records show that Ex.P10 is destroyed and is not available. The counsel for the claimant and the insurer did not possess copy of Ex.P10. If that be so, there was no basis for the Tribunal to hold that the claimant had stated that he had fallen off a bike and sustained injuries. Hence, it is clear that the claimant had suffered injuries in the accident that occurred on 16.09.2007. 5. In view of the fact that the vehicle in question was insured by respondent No.2, it is appropriate that respondent No.2 is made liable to pay the compensation. 6. The claimant contended that he was employed and was earning a salary of Rs.8,000/- per month which is evident from Ex.P9. There is no contra evidence led in by the respondent-insurer. 7. In that view of the matter, since the claimant had undergone treatment for six days, he is entitled to the loss of earning during the laid up period. Hence, the compensation is awarded as follows: (Amount in Rupees) Loss of income during the period of treatment for six days 1,600 Medical expenses 26,054 Compensation towards pain and suffering 5,000 Attendant charges 3,000 TOTAL 35,654 8. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.35,654/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition, till the date of payment. The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation within two months from the date of issue of certified copy of this order.