Rameshchandra Lodaya vs Rajashekarayya Mursavirayya

K. Govindarajulu

The respondent in MVC. No. 1360/1995 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and MACT Haveri is the appellant in this appeal. The parties will be referred according to their ranking before the MACT for convenience.

The facts necessary for the consideration of the appeal are as follows:

The case of the claimant is that he was waiting for a bus in Jenumuri cross on Sirsi-Hubli road on 1.2.1993 to reach Hubli, then the driver of the scooter bearing registration No. CRW 1915 i.e., the respondent asked him whether he is interested to come to Hubli. So, he boarded as a pillion rider. While so proceeding, the driver of the scooter has driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and near Thayamma temple at about 9.15 a.m., he caused accident, it resulted in injuries, so seek for compensation. The claimant has placed reliance on police records including FIR to support the case of the claimant. The defence of the respondent is that after the accident, complaint is not filed. Even the so-called eye witnesses have not filed the complaint. The complaint is filed after five months. The police have not filed charge sheet against the accused and have submitted a ''B'' report. ''B'' report is not challenged by the claimant, seizure mahazar while conducting the investigation will not help the claimant, so seek for exonerating the respondent.

The learned Member of the Tribunal after recording of the evidence has allowed the claim application directing the respondent to pay Rs. 63,100/-.

The learned Advocate for the respondent/appellant vehemently contend the accident is said to be on 1.2.1993, the complaint is filed on 12.7.1993. It itself creates doubt so, the case of the claimant ought not to have been accepted by the Tribunal. The medical records relied would not also support the case of the claimant, as no medico legal case is registered. There is an admission by the claimant that one Rameshchandra Gowda or Parameshwar has admitted him. This probablize he is not definite. So, seek for dismissal of the claim application by allowing the appeal.

The learned Advocate for the claimant supports the reasoning of the learned Member of the Tribunal, seeks for dismissal of the appeal. Carefully considered the material submission. The principle that ''Men may lie, happenings and facts, surrounding circumstances will not lie'' is equally applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not the case of the learned Advocate for the appellant that in regard to the injuries sustained, the claimant has not taken any treatment. Ex. P. 4 is the discharge card of the claimant, it shows the patient being admitted on 1.2.1993, diagnosed for the fracture of the neck of the femur, discharged on 12.4.1993. It is further supported with another discharge card as per Ex. P. 5 wherein the claimant is admitted on 16.5.1993 and discharged on 16.8.1993. It is true delay in filing of the complaint is one of the ground to find the mala fides of the complainant. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, the particulars of the treatment referred to would probablize sufficient cause in regard to the delay in filing of the complaint. So, the submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant for dismissal of the MVC is without any merit. It is rejected. The finding recorded by the learned Member of the Tribunal is in consonance with the settled law on the subject so, it does not require interference. So, the appeal is dismissed. The amount in deposit be transferred to the Tribunal for payment.