AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.N. Satyanarayana, J—Claimants in MVC. Nos. 360/2008, 363/2008 and 368/2008 on the file of MACT, Belur, have come in these three appeals, namely MFA. Nos. 9733/2011, 9734/2011 and 9732/2011 respectively challenging the common judgment dated 5.7.2011 in dismissing the aforesaid three claim petitions.
Brief facts leading to filing of these three appeals are as under:
On 25.2.2008 when deceased I.M. Sathish in respect of whom claim petition is filed by his parents in MVC. No. 368/2008 was walking towards Banavara railway station, a tractor trailer bearing registration No. KA-46/T. 1170-1171, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner hit one Yathisha, I.M. Sathish and Jayapal, who were walking on the road near Suladimmanahalli tank bund resulting in all of them falling into tank injuring I.M. Sathish on head and causing injuries to other two persons. Though the accident is said to have taken place on 25.2.2008 at about 4.00 pm., the complaint is lodged with Banavara Police on 5.3.2008 at about 12.30 noon. Based on which, FIR is registered in 52/2008. Thereafter, police is said to have conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against one I.G. Taaresha, who is said to be the driver of offending tractor trailer. Subsequently, claim petition is filed by two injured and parents of deceased I.M. Sathish seeking compensation for the death of I.M. Sathish and for the injuries suffered by injured Jayapal and Yathisha. In the proceedings before tribunal, the claimants in all the three claim petitions adduced evidence in support of their case.
(i) In MVC. No. 360/2008 claimant - Jayapal has examined himself as PW.l. In addition, he also examined one Dr.Ramakrishna Bhat as PW. 2, who is said to have treated him in Hemavathi Hospital, Hassan and also examined another doctor, namely Dr. K.P. Hebbar as PW. 5, who is said to have treated claimant at Jayachamarajendra Hospital, Arasikere. The other two persons, namely Nanjegowda and Manjegowda are examined as PWs. 3 and 4, who are said to be eye witnesses to the accident. In support of his case the claimant has produced and marked in all 21 documents as EXs. P. 1 to P. 21.
(ii) In MVC. No. 363/2008 besides the claimant - Yathish adducing evidence as PW. 1 also examined one Dr. Abdul Basheer of Mangala Hospital, Hassan is examined as PW. 2. In support of his case the claimant has produced and marked in all 20 documents as EXs. P1 to P20.
(iii) In MVC. No. 368/2008, the father of deceased Sathish is examined as PW. 1 and eye witness to accident i.e., Nanjegowda is examined as PW. 2 and brother of deceased one Theerthamallesh Gowda is examined as PW. 3. In support of their case the claimants have produced and marked in all 69 documents as EXs. P1 to P69.
(iv) In the said proceedings, the common respondent in all three claim petitions i.e., insurer of tractor alleged to have caused the accident has adduced evidence through its officer one Anand as RW. 1 in MVC. Nos. 363/2008 and 368/2008 and produced and marked in all 21 documents as Exs. RW. 1 to RW. 21 in MVC. No. 368/2008, which is common to all the three claim petitions. In MVC. No. 363/2008 the insurance company also examined one Ramesh D.S. as RW. 2, officer of insurance company and one P. Govindaraju as RW. 3, who is the investigator appointed by insurance company to investigate into the matter.
The tribunal on appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record, did not believe the accident as having taken place in the manner in which it is stated in the claim petitions and tried to be explained by the claimants and other claimants'' witnesses in all three claim petitions and proceeded to dismiss the claim petitions filed by two injured and parents of deceased. The claimants being aggrieved by the same, have come up in these appeals.
Though these appeals came up for admission, this Court felt that record of court below is essential to consider the correctness or otherwise of the findings of the tribunal. Hence, lower court record was secured and after securing the records the matter is heard in the presence of learned counsel for claimants and the learned counsel for respondent - insurance company as well as the counsel for respondent - owner of tractor trailer. It is seen that before the tribunal though owner of tractor trailer was represented by learned counsel and filed formal objection, did not pursue the same by adducing evidence. Infact it is observed by the tribunal that owner and driver are none other than relatives of deceased I.M. Sathish.
When this appeal is taken up for admission, this Court on going through the judgment impugned with reference to pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record as well as grounds of appeals noticed that the finding of tribunal in dismissing the claim petitions filed by the appellants herein is just and proper for the following reasons;
(i) Admittedly, the accident is said to have taken place on 25.2.2008 involving tractor trailer bearing registration No. KA-46/T. 1170-1171. It is stated that accident has taken place at about 4.00 pm., near Suladimmanahalli tank bund, on the way to Banavara railway station. The complaint is filed on 5.3.2008 i.e., subsequent to death of I.M. Sathish, who is said to be injured in the aforesaid accident involving the tractor. The complaint is filed by one I.G. Ramesh, who is none other than brother of I.G. Taaresh, owner of tractor and also said to have caused the accident. The father''s name and address of the complainant as seen in Ex. P3 in MVC. No. 360/2008 and that of respondent in the cause title to the claim petitions would confirm the same and this is infact, is the reason as to how the tribunal felt that all the persons are related to each other. The plain reading of Ex. P3 would indicate that complainant - I.G. Ramesh is a teacher in Government school. It is stated by him that he was informed by Manjegowda - PW. 4 in MVC. 360/2008 that on the same day at about 4.00 pm., the tractor belonging to complainant''s brother caused the accident near Suladimmanahalli tank bund causing injuries to I.M. Sathish and another Yathish. But, in the said complaint there is no reference to Jayapal being injured in said accident. It is stated that on 25.2.2008 Manjegowda informed the complainant - I.G. Ramesh that the injured were taken initially to Mangala Hospital. Accordingly, when he visited said hospital he found that Yathish and Sathish were severely injured and since the condition of Sathish was serious as per the advice of doctors in said hospital Sathish was taken to Devegowda hospital, Bengaluru, for further treatment. Whereas Yathish was taken to Mangala hospital of Hassan. In between, it is shown as if there was one more person by name Jayapal, who is also injured and said Jayapal was initially taken to Government Hospital at Arasikere, which is closer and from there he was taken to Hemavathi Hospital, Hassan and subsequently to Jayachamrajendra hospital as could be seen from the documents available on record. Infact, in the case of Jayalapal Ex. P9 is the wound certificate issued by Jayachamarajendra General Hospital, Arasikere on 4.4.2008 and Ex. P10 is the certificate issued by Dr. Ramakrishna Bhat of Hemavathi hospital, Hassan on 26.2.2008. In both certificates, it is stated that it is of RTA.
(ii) Assuming for a moment that claimant Jayapal has received injuries in the aforesaid accident, why it was not brought to the notice of police either at Banavara or at Arasikere or at Hassan, is not at all explained by anybody. It is not informed in the case of Jayapal and also in the case of Yathish as well as in the case of I.M. Sathish. Therefore, it is clearly seen that in none of the cases of claimants, the involvement of tractor trailer is seen. Infact, the manner in which the accident has taken place is seen in the documents which are marked in ''R'' series produced and marked by insurance company. It would indicate that when injured I.M. Sathish was taken to D.G. Hospital, Bengaluru, PW. 3 Theertha Mallesh Gowda, who is the brother of deceased Sathish would inform the police that Sathish suffered injuries in an accident involving two wheeler motor cycle, which is not the case of complainant - I.G. Ramesh when complaint is filed on 5.3.2008. However immediately after accident when Sathish was taken to hospital that was the statement given by Theertha Mallesh Gowda at D.G. Hospital, Bengaluru.
(iii) It is further seen that there are several statements, which are available in the documents in ''R'' series, which would indicate that the presence of either Jayapal or Yathish or Sathish could not be traced to the accident involving tractor trailer of first respondent - Vijayendra. Infact, they have gone to the extent of manipulating the document, which is in Mangala hospital at the behest of Dr. Abdul Basheer with reference to admission of somebody, whose name is not legible, whose father name is Nanjundeshwara and residents of Ibbedu, Belur, as the admission of Yathish s/o. Nanjunde Gowda. In the said documents it is clearly seen that name is tampered ''Ibbedu'' is inserted subsequently to show that Yathish was admitted at Mangala Hospital as inpatient, as could be seen from the document, which is marked in Ex. RW 23 series and the other documents, which are there on record, namely statement of one of the claimant Jayapal, which indicate that the tractor trailer is said to have hit him first, who was walking on the road and thereafter, it hit the motor bike on which two persons were traveling, one of them died indicating that they are Yathish and Sathish, which statement is totally contrary to the contents of complaint which is at Ex. P3 in MVC. 360/2008.
It is seen that tribunal has meticulously assessed each and every piece of document, which was available on record and has clearly seen the game plan of claimants in all the three claim petitions in trying to project the unfortunate incident resulting in death of Sathish and injury to Yathish in some accident and injury said to have caused to Jayalpal in some other accident, which is totally unconnected to this, are all tried to be put up together and an attempt is made to demonstrate that said injuries and death is involving the tractor trailer belonging to first respondent - Vijayendra, who is none other than the brother of complainant - I.G. Ramesh. The manner in which the complaint is registered also indicates and strengthen the doubt, which arose in the mind of tribunal in complaint being registered on 5.3.2008 one day after the death of Sathish, who is said to have suffered injuries in accident dated 25.2.2008. When claimants in all the three claim petitions were not able to substantiate the involvement of tractor trailer and accident taking place in the manner in which they tried to explain, the tribunal rightly disbelieved the story and dismissed the claim petitions. However the claimants not giving up their hope to pursue the false and frivolous claim which they had made before the tribunal, have come up in these three appeals in trying to impress upon this Court that there is error on the part of tribunal in appreciating the documents.
When this Court probed further into the matter and in detail examined the documents produced in each case, it is seen that the finding of tribunal is beyond reasonable doubt and the fact that there is an attempt to frame the tractor trailer belonging to first respondent is nothing but an attempt to help the claimants in securing hefty compensation from the insurer of tractor for the injuries of two of the claimants and for the death of Sathish, which is caused otherwise than the use of or involvement of aforesaid tractor trailer. In that view of the matter, this Court feel that no justifiable grounds are made out to admit these three appeals and accordingly, they are dismissed.
Infact, this Court feel that while dismissing these appeals hefty cost is required to be imposed. However, considering the fact that two of the appellants herein have already lost their son in some other accident, which they have tried to frame to the preset tractor trailer, this Court showing respect to their grief has restrained itself from imposing cost.