P.N. Hanumantha Reddy vs Sowmya R.

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—The main appeal bearing MFA 1597/2010 is filed by the claimant and MFA 7409/2009 is filed by the respondent No. 2-insurer in MVC 1429/2008 which was pending on the file of VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bengaluru. The insurer is disputing the liability to indemnify the claimant.

The case of the claimant is that he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident which occurred on 9.10.2007 due to rash and negligent riding of the TVS Scooty bearing No. KA-09-Y-7090. Hence, he had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act before the Tribunal seeking compensation. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 43,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.

The grievance of the insurer is that the Tribunal could not have fastened the liability on the insurer when the very document furnished by the claimant make out a clear case of false implication of the vehicle by the injured.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the records.

What is argued by Sri. Sumath L. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the claimant is that documents produced by the claimant unequivocally disclose the involvement of the vehicle in question and injuries sustained by the claimant. He has placed reliance on Eax. P-1, FIR lodged by the claimant on 9.10.2007 at 4.00 p.m. before the jurisdictional police about injuries sustained by him in road traffic accident involving TVS Scooty bearing KA-09-Y-7090. On investigation, police chose to file charge sheet on the rider of the motorcycle and it is evident from Ex. P-3. Ex. P-4 and 5 are the spot mahazar, which are stated to be prepared by the police.

The wound certificate of Hanumantha Reddy is marked as Exp. 2. It discloses that he had sustained abrasion on the right temporal region measuring 3"X2" swelling and deformity of right wrist clinically fracture lower end of right radius. It also discloses that he was examined at 2 p.m. by the medical officer of Kamakshi Hospital, Kuvempu nagar, Mysore and he had been accompanied by Sri. R.V. Narasimhan. It does not disclose as to the case of the injuries. Admittedly first information was lodged at about 4 p.m. i.e., two hours after he was admitted to the hospital at 2 p.m. Normally doctor would have to intimate the jurisdictional police as it was a medico legal case. Ex. P.2- wound certificate does not disclose anything about the same.

Learned counsel appearing for the insurer was very much relied on Ex. P.8, the wound certificate issued by Venlakh Hospital, Chamarajpet, Mysore. It discloses that he was admitted on 11.10.2007 and discharged on 13.10.2007. It discloses about the comminuted fracture of right wrist and it also discloses that he had been admitted of having sustained injuries because of fall down accidentally while climbing the stair case two days ago.

What is argued before this court by the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant is that there is no reason to disbelieve Ex. P. 1-first information report which was lodged at an undisputed point of time and investigation conducted by the responsible police officials. But we cannot forget a very important document produced to the court by the very claimant in the form of Ex. P.8. P.W. 1 has admitted in his evidence that he does not dispute the contents of the documents produced by him inclusive of the medical records. This is an important admission within the purview of section 17 of the Evidence Act. If it is not the case of the claimant that somebody had given the history of the accident on his behalf when he was admitted to Venlakh hospital. The contents of Ex. P.8 medical certificate issued by Venlakh Hospital would go to show that the history of the injuries was furnished by the claimant himself.

It is not as though for the first time the insurer has taken up this defence. While in the cross examination of P.W. 1 a specific suggestion is put to him that he had sustained injury by fall from stair case. Ofcourse he has been specifically denied. But in the very next sentence he has admitted that history was given by him to Venlakh Hospital about the injuries sustained. He does not know for what reason the hospital authorities have over written the date on Ex. P.9. He has specifically deposed that he has not disputed the hospital document at any point of time. The trial court has ignored this vital aspect of the matter and has granted compensation directing the insurer to pay the same, which is improper and incorrect. The learned Judge of the MACT has not assessed the entire evidence in right perspective. In that view of the matter, the appeal filed by the insurer will have to be allowed and the appeal filed by the claimant will have to be dismissed.

What is argued before this court by Mr. Sumanth L Bharadwaj is that MACTs are established with an object of suitably compensating the victims of road traffic accident. But at the same time the MACT s are expected to rule out the possibility of false claims. This aspect of the matter has been normally lost sight of by the trial court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

"The appeal filed by the Insurer is allowed. The liability of the insurer is set aside. The appeal filed by the claimant is dismissed confirming the liability on the owner of the vehicle in question. The amount deposited by the insurer in this appeal is to be refunded to the insurer."