AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Govindarajulu, J.—The claimant in MVC No. 187/02 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and Addl. MACT Udupi, is the Appellant in this appeal.
It is claimed by the Petitioner in his claim petition u/s 166 of the MV Act that on 14.10.2000 at about 4.30 p.m. while he was travelling in a bus bearing registration No. KA-19-5354, when the bus was near Siddapura of Kunigal Taluk, the driver lost control and dashed against road side tree. On account of the accident the Petitioner sustained injuries and seek compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs.
Insurance Company has filed objections, contend that on verification of the records, the vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-19-5354 do not appear to have been insured with it. It is also contended that the first Respondent, the owner of the vehicle has not produced the Registration Certificate, Tax Card, Fitness Certificate, Insurance particulars, driving licence of the driver as on the date of the accident. Further contend that the claim is exaggerated, plead for dismissal of claim application.
P.W. 1 is partly examined. Adjourned at the request of the defence council for cross examination, but later on the ground that the steps are not taken the evidence of P.W. 1 is taken has eschewed. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are also examined. The learned member of the tribunal has dismissed the claim application, on the ground that there is difference in the bus number as the one contended in the claim petition and in the police records.
Learned advocate for the claimant/Appellant contend that in the facts of the case, after issuing summons, presence of P.W. 1 is secured. P.W. 1 is a Police Officer. Case is adjourned for the cross examination on the request of the advocate for the Insurance Company. So it is for the advocate for the Insurance Company to pay beta process to secure P.W. 1 having not approached the subject, approach of the learned trial judge in eschewed the evidence is incorrect. The evidence of P.W. 2 would prove the accident, impact. Further during the course of the marking of the documents or in the course of the objections the identity of the vehicle is not done. Specifically on the bus number there is no separate pleading, so the approach of the tribunal is not justified.
In reply, the learned advocate for the Insurance Company contend that it is for the claimant, to prove and not for the Respondent to prove not only about the accident but also regarding eligibility of the claimant for compensation. There being no material evidence to support the claim, the approach by the member of the tribunal is proper. So pray for dismissal of the appeal.
The material facts refer to would probabilise the Petitioner has secured the presence of Investigation Officer examined him as P.W. 1. It is done in pursuance of orders on IA-II on 13.9.04. On 26.12.06 P.W. 1 is examined. Cross-examination is deferred at the request of the defence council. So the approach of the learned trial judge that steps are not taken. So the evidence of P.W. 1 has to be eschewed is not justified.
Secondly it is not in the objections that a different vehicle is involved, company is not liable. In the light of the stand taken by the claimant and the Respondent 2 Insurance Company, wherein the Insurance company call upon the owner of the vehicles to produce the parties. No steps being taken by Respondent 2 in pursuance of the stand taken in the objections, the approach of the learned member of the tribunal is not justified.
Evidence being not completed, court has to set-aside the finding. Direct the tribunal to restore MVC 187/02 to its file, decide the case afresh in accordance with law with in a span of six month from the date of receipt of the LCR by the tribunal. Office is directed to send back the LCR forthwith.
Appeal is allowed accordingly, setting aside the finding recorded in MVC 187/02.