SRI SRINIVAS vs RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

Appellant being the claimant has filed this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 28-07-2016 made in MVC No.1849/2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court" for short) dismissing the claim petition filed by him.

The claimant filed the claim petition contending that on 08-07-2011 at about 4.00 p.m., while he was proceeding in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-13/S-9699 as a pillion rider on Kembalu-Valagerahalli road, unexpectedly a stray dog came across the road. In order to avoid that stray dog, the rider of the motorcycle suddenly applied the break, due to which, the vehicle turned turtle and the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Tiptur Government Hospital, thereafter he was shifted to NIMHANS, further on the advice of the doctor at NIMHANS, he was shifted to Abhaya Hospital, Bangalore. He has spent huge money for his treatment. He was in Coma stage for a period of four months. Prior to the accident, the claimant was doing agricultural work and milk vending business and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m. In view of the injuries he has sustained in the accident, he has become permanently disabled to do any work. Hence sought for compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-.

Though the first respondent-owner of the offending vehicle was served with notice, he remained unrepresented. The second respondent-insurance company filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and contended that due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the rider himself, the accident had occurred and the claimant has sustained injuries. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to compensate the claimant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed necessary issues.

In order to prove the case of the claimant, wife of the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and two of the witnesses were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. On behalf of the respondentinsurance company, one of the officers was examined as R.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. Further, the doctor who treated the claimant was examined as C.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.C1 to Ex.C7.

The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration spot mahazar, copy of the complaint, charge sheet, MLC report of two hospitals, held that the claimant has sustained injuries due to fall from the motorcycle on Channarayapatna road. Further, the claimant was not proceeding in the offending motorcycle as a pillion rider, but in order to get compensation from the insurance company, he has contended that he was a pillion rider. Whereas the MLC report from the Government Hospital at Tiptur as well as NIMHANS clearly disclose that the injuries sustained due to self-fall from the motorcycle. Hence, disbelieving the case set up by the claimant, the trial Court dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the claimant has preferred this appeal.

Sri.Girish B Baladare, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the judgment and award passed by the trial Court is contrary to law. Necessary documents have been produced i.e. IMV report, copy of the complaint and charge sheet to show that while the claimant was proceeding as a pillion rider in the offending motorcycle, a stray dog came across the road and in order to avoid that stray dog, rider of the motorbike suddenly applied the break, as a result of which, the claimant fell down and sustained injuries. The MLC report is not sacrosanct. Hence sought for setting aside the judgment and award passed by the trial Court by allowing this appeal.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties.

The records clearly disclose that the claimant has sustained injuries on 08-07-2011 at about 4.00 p.m. He claims that while he was traveling as a pillion rider in the offending motorbike, the accident occurred and he sustained injuries. On the other hand, the MLC reports received from the Government Hospital, Tiptur as well as from NIMHANS, the history of injury revealed as self-fall from bike on Chennarayapatna road. Further, though the accident occurred on 08-07-2011, the complaint came to be filed only on 14-07-2011. Thereafter the police department was set in motion and they proceeded to register a case; conducted spot mahazar and also filed charge sheet. The vehicle was seized on 27-07-2011 and the Inspector of Motor Vehicle inspected the vehicle on 28-07-2011 at about 2.30 p.m. In the IMV report, the Inspector has clearly stated that no visible damage is caused to the offending vehicle and break system of the vehicle is perfectly in order. If the case of the claimant is accepted as true, nowhere in the claim petition, the claimant has stated anything with regard to status of the rider of the motorcycle. When the vehicle had turned turtle, obviously, the rider of the motorcycle should have sustained injuries, but nowhere, the claimant has stated that the rider of the said motorcycle has sustained any injuries. Looking to the IMV report, it is evident that due to self-fall from the bike on Channarayapatna road, the claimant has sustained injuries. In order to get compensation from the insurance company, a case has been set up in collusion with the owner of the motorcycle stating that he was a pillion rider in the vehicle. Though the vehicle had turned turtle, there is no visible damage caused to the vehicle. That itself shows that due to his own fault, the claimant has fell down. The insurance company had examined the doctor who treated the claimant and wrote the MLC report. The doctor in his evidence has clearly stated that, what was stated by the person who brought the claimant to the hospital has been written by him in the MLC report. All these materials clearly disclose that the trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the claim petition. I find no infirmity or irregularity in the judgment and award passed by the Trial Court and the appellant has not made out a case to interfere with the said judgment and award. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2017 filed for condonation of delay of 81 days in filing the appeal does not survive for consideration, accordingly, the same is dismissed.