AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Manohar, J. - Appellants are the claimants, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 21st June, 2011 made in MVC No. 533 of 2009 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'' for short) filed this appeal.
Appellants filed a claim petition contending that, son of the claimant deceased Nagaraj on 21-4-2009, after attending Pooja in Dyamalamba Temple in Hireguntanur Village while he was proceeding towards the bus stand on the left side of the road, a tractor bearing Registration No. KA-16/T-1176 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased. As a result of which, Nagaraj fell down and sustained fatal injuries. He was shifted to Government Hospital at Chitradurga and thereafter he was shifted to S.S. Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Hospital at Davanagere for better treatment. However he succumbed to injuries on 25-4-2009 at about 9.30 p.m., during the treatment. The claimants claim that they have spent more than Rs. 1,00,000/- for his treatment. Prior to the accident, he was working as a Barber, earning Rs. 6,000/- p.m. and as on the date of death, he was aged about 25 years. The family has lost the bread earner and sought for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal, the owner of the tractor though served with notice, he remained unrepresented. The second respondent-Insurance Company filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and disputed the age, income and avocation of the deceased. The compensation claimed is exorbitant. Further, the driver of the tractor did not possess the valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. Further, while the deceased was admitted in the hospital, it was clearly stated that injury sustained is due to fall from Brick Kilm. However, the complaint has been lodged on 22-4-2009 at about 9.00 p.m. by one Shivakumar stating that on 21-4-2009, while the deceased Nagaraj was crossing the road, the Tractor Engine dashed against Nagaraj. Immediately after the accident, he and Ravi took him to the Chitradurga District Hospital in auto-rickshaw. There is inconsistency in the case set up by the claimants. Hence, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. The first claimant got himself examined as P.W. 1 and Ravi who took the deceased to the Hospital was examined as P.W. 2 and got marked the documents as Exs. P. 1 to P. 20. On behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company, the Doctor working in the District Hospital, Chitradurga was examined as R.W. 1 and got marked the documents as Exs. R. 1 to R. 4.
The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties held that the claimants have failed to prove that deceased Nagaraj sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 21-4-2009 and died on 25-4-2009 at 9.30 p.m. However, he was taken to District Hospital, Chitradurga at about 8.20 p.m. While admitting the said Nagaraj, the father of the deceased, Sri Ramappa (claimant 1) was present. While preparing the OPD slip, it was mentioned that injury is due to fall from Height (bricks kilm). Before the doctor, Ramappa, father of the deceased made a statement that injury sustained due to self-fall from height. Father of the deceased Ramappa has put his signature on the case-sheet. In view of that, MLC register was not sent to the Police Authorities. However, on 22-4-2009, at about 9.00 a.m., the complaint was lodged by one Shivakumar stating that after performing pooja at Dyamalamba Temple, while crossing the road, a tractor has dashed against the deceased and the complainant and one Ravi took him to the District Hospital at Chitradurga in an auto-rickshaw. But the said complainant has not been examined. The doctor of the District Hospital was examined by the Insurance Company as R.W. 1. The doctor has clearly stated that the injured Nagaraj was brought to the hospital accompanied by his father Ramappa, wherein the father has stated that the said Nagaraj fell down from Bricks Kilm and sustained grievous injuries. The same was noted in the case sheet in the hospital and the said Ramappa had put his signature on the same. The Tribunal taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence held that the deceased Nagaraj did not die due to the road traffic accident and the death occurred due to fall from Bricks Kilm. Hence the claimants are not entitled for any compensation and dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the claimants have preferred this appeal.
Sri B.M. Siddappa, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition is contrary to law. The accident occurred on 21-4-2009 at about 6.00 p.m., the injured person was taken to the hospital at 8.20 p.m. A complaint has been lodged on 22-4-2009 at about 9.00 a.m. In the complaint, the complainant has clearly mentioned that due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor, it dashed against Nagaraj and he sustained injuries. The said complainant along with one Ravi had taken the injured person to the Hospital. The father of the deceased lead evidence. He was cross-examined by the Advocate appearing for the Insurance Company. Nothing contrary has been elicited. One of the eye-witnesses was also examined as P.W. 2. However, solely on the basis that while admitting to the District Hospital, the father of the deceased had made a statement to the effect that injury is fall from height (Bricks Kilm), the recording made in the Government Hospital cannot be a ground to deny the compensation. Occurrence of the accident is proved by leading evidence and police records also shows that the deceased had sustained injuries in the road traffic accident. Except examining the doctor of District Hospital, no material has been placed by the Insurance Company. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and sought for allowing the appeal by awarding compensation.
On the other hand, Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and contended that though the deceased fell down from Bricks Kilm, in order to get the compensation from the Insurance Company a false case has been set up. The person who lodged the complaint before the jurisdictional police has not been examined. At the earliest point of time, while the deceased was brought to the hospital, father of the deceased made a statement that injury is due to self-fall and while preparing the OPD slip also made a statement before the treating doctor that injury is fall from height and father of the deceased had put his signature in the case sheet maintained in the hospital. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and other relevant records.
The records clearly disclose that the deceased had sustained injury on 21-4-2009. When he was taken to the District Hospital at Chitradurga, while preparing the OPD slip it is mentioned that the injury sustained due to the fall from the height. Father of the deceased Ramappa also made a statement before the doctor that the injury sustained is due to self-fall from height. The said Ramappa had put his signature on the case sheet maintained in the hospital. However, while lodging the complaint before the jurisdictional police it was mentioned that while the deceased was crossing the road, due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor, the accident had occurred. However, that complainant has not been examined before the Tribunal. The father of the deceased was not the eye-witness, P.W. 2 is the eye-witness. He has stated that the tractor dashed against the deceased while crossing the road, but he was not aware of the tractor number. Further he states that he has sent the injured person in a tempo to the District Hospital and thereafter he has informed the accident to the parents of the injured person. However, while lodging the complaint by Shivakumar, he has stated that he himself along with Ravi took the injured person in an auto-rickshaw to the District Hospital. However, Ravi in his evidence states that the injured person was sent to the District Hospital in a tempo, further he was not aware of the tractor number. If Shivakumar had taken the injured person to the District Hospital, nothing prevented the claimants to examine the said Shivakumar who was the eye-witness and also lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police. On the other hand, in the evidence of the doctor working in a District Hospital he has clearly stated that the injured person was brought to the hospital at about 8.20 p.m. In the OPD slip, it was clearly mentioned that the injury is due to fall from height (Bricks kilm). Before the treating doctor, the father of the deceased Ramappa also stated that injury is due to self-fall and he has signed the case sheet maintained in the hospital. However, subsequently, a case has been built up that the injured sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident. The statement made by the father of the deceased at the earliest point of time in the hospital has to be taken into consideration. If there is any wrong recording by the doctor at District Hospital, nothing prevented the claimants to cross-examine the said doctor and dispel the said recording. The doctor in his cross-examination clearly stated that one Ramappa brought the injured person to the hospital at about 8.20 p.m. While preparing the OPD slip, they have stated that injury was due to fall from height. Then the father of the deceased also signed the case sheet. However, on the next day, a complaint has been lodged by one Shivakumar, stating that the tractor has dashed against the injured person. The case set up by the claimants cannot be accepted. The Tribunal taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, dismissed the claim petition holding that the claimants have failed to establish the occurrence of the accident. On re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, it is seen that appellants have not made out a case to set aside the said finding of the Tribunal. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3171 of 2009 in the case of North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Gourabai and Others, held as under:
"Reference was made to the evidence of the doctor, who had admitted the deceased to the hospital, that the deceased had suffered head injury due to fall from the height of 8 to 10 feet of his own house. Though this was specifically stated in the written statement, the MACT and the High Court brushed aside the same stating that there was indirect admission about the deceased having sustained injury in vehicular accident. The effect of the evidence of the doctor and Exhibit R. 1 does not appear to have been looked into by the MACT and the High Court. MACT did not place reliance on the document R-1 on the ground that the brother of the injured stated that he did not know what was written in the document and his signature was taken on one page. This conclusion overlooks from the fact that a doctor will not take a signature on a piece of paper mentioning something which is not correct. Exhibit R. 1 establishes beyond the shadow of doubt that the injuries sustained were not on account of any vehicular accident. That being so, the MACT and the High Court were not justified in making any award. The order of the MACT and High Court stands set aside."
The appellants have failed to establish that the deceased died due to the road traffic accident occurred on 21-4-2009. There is no infirmity or irregularity in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal filed by appellants is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.