AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.N. Satyanarayana, J.—The Respondent BMTC is in appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 18.7.2005 passed in MVC. No. 3299/2001 fastening liability on it to pay compensation to the claimant in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from tile date of petition till 3.9.2002 and from 24.11.2004 till payment of compensation amount to claimant.
Brief facts leading to this appeal are:
The Respondent who is claimant in court below filed claim petition stating that on 8.7.2001 at about 9.45 a.m., he met with an accident on Old Madras Road near Union Bank while he was riding cycle and he was hit by a bus bearing No. CAF 325. As such, he suffered injuries resulting in fracture to clavicle and other injuries. In the said petition he sought for compensation in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from Respondent BMTC. The Court below on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record allowed the said petition in part by awarding compensation in a cum of Rs. 50,000/- payable by Respondent BMTC, which is challenged in this appeal.
Counsel appearing for Appellant would contend that the Court below has not appreciated the documentary evidence, Ex. P5, available on record. It has erroneously accepted the oral evidence of claimant and other documents, which are produced by claimant. The document at Ex. P5 demonstrates that claimant was injured in an accident taken place between his cycle and an autorickshaw. Ex. P5 also discloses in unequivocal terms the involvement of Respondent Corporation bus is not there. The Court below by not looking into the said document has proceeded to award compensation to claimant.
On reappreciation of the documentary evidence available on record this Court would notice that on 8.7.2001, the date of accident the claimant has gone to Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore at about 10.00 a.m., and got himself treated as an outpatient. While getting outpatient card he has stated before the Doctors that he has suffered said injuries in the accident, which has taken place due to involvement of Autorickshaw. Further, it is seen that the complaint regarding accident is filed by him on 14.7.2001. i.e., nearly after one week. The reason for non filing of complaint immediately after accident is not explained properly.
Though the claimant has stated In his oral evidence before the Court below that immediately after accident he fell down and lost consciousness Ex. P5 filed by him does not support the same. Perusal of Ex. P5, out patient card issued by Bowring and Lady Gurzon hospital on 8.7.2001 at about 10,00 a.m., clearly discloses that he was conscious, he was able to explain injuries that he has suffered before duty doctor and could explain the way in which injuries are suffered by him. Inspite of this material evidence available on record, the Court below has ignored the same and has blindly accepted the oral evidence of claimant, allowed the claim petition awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and fastened liability to pay the said compensation on Respondent BMTC.
This Court after going through the said documents find that the judgment and award passed by court below based on oral evidence of claimant is erroneous and is passed without applying its mind and without looking into the material document available on record. Hence the same is required to be set aside.
Accordingly, appeal filed by BMTC is allowed. Consequently, the judgment and award passed in MVC. No. 3299/2001 is set aside without any order as to costs. It is further ordered that statutory deposit made by Appellant BMTC be returned to it forthwith.