AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi Malimath
Being aggrieved by the Judgment and award dated 20-3-009 passed in MVC.No.3273/2006 by the XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, MACT, Bangalore, the claimant has filed the present appeals. Both the appeals arise out of a common accident and hence both are taken up for consideration together.
The appellant in MFA No.5010/2009 is the husband and two children of the deceased and the appellant in MFA No.5039/2009 is the husband. The case of the claimant-husband is that the he was taking the deceased on a motorcycle in 23-4-2006 at about 5.45 a.m. on his motorcycle bearing No. KA-50-E-827 on the Bangalore-Bellary Road, a Maruthi car bearing No.KA-04-P-280 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of which the wife of the appellant in MFA No.5039/2009 fell down and died. The appellant also sustained grievous injuries. Under these circumstances the appeals were filed by the husband and children of the deceased. The Tribunal by the impugned Judgment dismissed both the Petitions on the ground that the accident was not proved. Aggrieved by the same, these two appeals are filed.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that in terms of the evidence of the Circle Inspector who is examined as R.W.2 the accident has since been proved and hence rejection of the claim Petition is erroneous. He submits that on a complaint being lodged, the investigation was taken place. The investigation reveals that the Maruti car dashed against the motorcycle of the appellant causing death of the wife and injury to the husband. Hence, he pleads that the appeal be allowed.
On the other hand, Sri Lingaraj, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents defends the impugned order.
On hearing the counsels I''am of the considered view that there is no error committed by the Tribunal that calls for interference. The primary evidence of P.W.1 namely, the husband of the deceased would shed light on the alleged accident even though various claims have been made in the evidence of P.W.1 namely, Pillaswamy during the course of cross-examination. He has stated that he had lodged a complaint before the police that some unknown vehicle has caused the accident. That he has not informed the police what type of vehicle has caused this accident. All the charge sheet witnesses are his relatives and friends and that none of the charge sheet witnesses have seen the accident. He does not know how the police came to know about the said Maruthi car bearing No.KA 04 P 2804 caused this accident. That the complaint was lodged on 23-4-2006 and till 6-8-2006, the police have not enquired at all with regard to the involvement of the vehicle in this case. The cross-examination of the witness is clear and unambiguous. The case sought to be made out by the appellant is quite different from the evidence on record. The evidence of Pillaswamy is clear and unambiguous. Therefore, it is clearly established that there is no accident involving the said car. The claim of the appellant has been rightly considered by the Tribunal while going into the merits and other material on record. The reliance placed on the evidence of R.W.2, the Circle Inspector is inconsequential in view of the primary evidence of P.W.1. Under these circumstances, there is no error committed by the Tribunal that calls for interference. Consequently the appeals are dismissed.