AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Justice Subhash B. Adi
Memo is filed for dispensation, of notice to respondent No. 1. Hence, notice to respondent No. 1 is dispensed with. There is a delay of 486 days in filing the appeal; Though the cause shown is not sufficient, matter is heard on merit.
This is claimant''s appeal questioning the judgment and award in M.V.C.No.2694/1995 daced 27.12.2005 on the file of Addl. M.A.C.T., Hassan.
The Tribunal has rejected the claim petition on the ground that the claimant has failed to prove that the injury sustained by him was in the road accident.
Learned Counsel for the claimant has produced the charge sheet along with an application for additional documents in this appeal and submitted that, a case was registered for an offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC against the motor vehicle bearing No. MEG-5990.
Claimant''s case is that. he was travelling in a lorry bearing No.MEG-5990 with 200 kgs. of ragi. On account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said lorry, it toppled on the right side and claimant got injured. To prove, the accident, he had produced Ex.P1 - Police notice, Ex.P2 -outpatient slip, Ex.P3 - outpatient certificate, Ex.P4 - certified copy of FIR, Exs.P5 and P6 - certified copy of injury certificate, Ex.P7 - x-ray and Ex.P8 - disability certificate.
The Tribunal on perusal of Exs.P2, P5 and P6 found that the claimant was brought under the escort of the Police to the hospital. The wound certificate - Ex.P5 refers the history of the injury as violence on 18.4.1993. Another wound certificate shows history of injury as fall. The case of the claimant is that, he took treatment in Belur on 18.4.1993 and thereafter he was treated in Chikmagalur from 23.4.1993 to 7.9.1993 as per Ex.P3. It is not stated as to what happened between 18.4.1993 to 23.4.1993 Even on 18.4.1993, he was treated as outpatient. The documents referred show one as violence and another as a fall. Further, nothing is produced to show that he was travelling in a goods vehicle as the owner. It is only after 23.4.1993, he gets admitted to the hospital and claims compensation.
Considering these documents, it clearly shows that, Police, who taken the claimant to the Police Station in connection with violence, registered a case for road traffic accident and thereafter, they have filed a charge sheet. The corresponding entry made in the hospital record revealed that, injuries due to violence and fall. He was also travelling in the lorry as a gratuitous passenger. The Tribunal having noticed all these circumstances has dismissed the claim petition. In my opinion, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. Doctors also casually give certificate on demand. This is very unfortunate. I find no grounds to interfere with the judgment and award of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and same is dismissed. Consequently, the application filed for condensation of delay is also rejected.