High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 07 KAR CK 0229

Ashok Kubaraddi vs Ramesh Suresh Patil

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 22 July 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
H.G. Ramesh, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
M.F.A No. 3796 of 2008

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 353 words

H.G. Ramesh

1.

This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 29.08.2005, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No.V, Bijapur, in M.V.C. No. 1166/1996. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and the record of the Tribunal.

3.

The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the accident was not proved. In my opinion, the claim appears to be a concocted one. In the complaint filed by the appellant, it is stated that the accident took place on 17.11.1996. In the claim petition, it is stated that the accident took place on 11.11.1996. The complaint was lodged on 19.11.1996 and the spot panchanama was conducted on 20.11.1996 by the police and the vehicle was seized on 24.11.1996. It is relevant to state that the appellant claims to be the pillion rider and the rider was none other than the owner of the motor cycle alleged to have been involved in the accident. There is no acceptable evidence to show that the appellant had taken any treatment on 11.11.1996. If really he was admitted to a private hospital as claimed, the doctor concerned ought to have informed the police. That also was not done. The evidence produced does not inspire any confidence to hold that the accident took place on 11.11.1996. Therefore, the finding that the accident is not proved cannot be said to be erroneous. In the normal course, if the accident had happened on 11.11.1996, the complaint to the police should have been filed on the very day or on the next day. But here, the complaint was lodged on 19.11.1996, and in the complaint it was stated that the accident took place on 17.11.1996. All these facts would show that the claim is not genuine. I find no legal infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the appellant had failed to prove the accident in question. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.