Vijaya Kumar M. vs P. Krishnaraja Rao and Others

S.N. Satyanarayana, J.—The claimant in MVC No. 46/2009 (Old No. 97/2009) on the file of MACT, Mysuru has come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded for the injury suffered in a road traffic accident dated 15.06.2008 at about 1.45 p.m.

The records would disclose that the aforesaid accident has taken place near Kathwadipura circle on Nanjanagudu - Mysuru main road while petitioner was riding motorcycle bearing registration No. KA 09 EM 6996 for proceeding from Nanjanagudu towards Mysuru. The records would disclose that the accident has taken place involving aforesaid motorcycle and another Tata Sumo bearing registration No. KA 12 M 6722 which belongs to first respondent before the tribunal and insured with the second respondent. The accident is not in dispute. So also the injury suffered by the claimant which is fracture of left femur and fracture of upper end of fibula of left leg.

The complaint which is lodged by the claimant before the tribunal which is at EX. P2 would disclose that the claimant was riding the motorcycle alongwith one Raju and another Chethan as pillion riders i.e., the claimant as rider of motorcycle was carrying three persons on it with two of them as pillion riders. It is stated in the complaint that while they were traveling on the motorcycle following all the rules and regulations the driver of the Tata Sumo came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their motorcycle resulting in injury to the claimant alone. Based on the said complaint FIR is registered on 15.06.2008 vide FIR No. 214/2008 and the said FIR is against the driver of Tata Sumo for the offence under Sections 279 and 337 and subsequently investigation was conducted and charge sheet was also filed.

In the claim proceedings though the claimant has produced the complaint and FIR, charge sheet is not produced by him which is produced and marked by the insurer at EX. R4, it would indicate that the charge sheet is filed against the driver of Tata Sumo. This clearly indicates the manner in which police are conducting investigation. When the claimant who is also complainant, who in his complaint itself clearly admits that he was riding the motorcycle alongwith two persons as pillion riders, that too holding a learner license, the police does not even apply their mind, blindly register the FIR showing the driver of Tata Sumo as accused and after conducting investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of Tata Sumo. When admittedly the claimant himself is a tortfeasor in first place as a holder of learning license he was not supposed to ride the motorcycle alongwith two persons sitting as pillion.

There is nothing on record to demonstrate that he had displayed ''V board on the front and back of the motorcycle. When that being the case the police ought to have charge sheeted the complainant himself for riding the motorcycle without having valid driving license and being the cause for accident. Merely because he has suffered certain injuries in the accident, is no reason for the police to file charge sheet against the driver of the Tata Sumo. As could be seen from the provisions of law invoked it would indicate that the driver of Tata Sumo was in fact having valid driving license for the reason that Section 3 is not invoked in the charge sheet which is filed against him. Therefore, a person who has violated the law in riding the motorcycle without having valid driving license files a complaint and the police after conducting investigation files a charge sheet against the persons who had valid driving license and was driving the car in a proper manner and would charge him for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337.

Time and again this court has been observing that in the road accident cases the police are not impartial. They are taking sides with one of the parties and are assisting them in all possible manners in creating documents to ensure that they would be getting fat compensation from the accident tribunals even though they are under wrong. This is one such classic example. Surprisingly the respondent Insurance Company though takes up such a defence in the trial court when the tribunal does not accept their defence simply keep quite without filing any appeal. This is the observation made by this court in several cases which would indicate that, the Insurance Companies are also not honest in either opposing false claims or in satisfying the erroneous judgments rendered by the tribunals in awarding compensation to tortfeasors.

This is yet another case where the tribunal has completely ignored the material available on record and blindly proceeded to award compensation to the claimant when he himself is the tortfeasor, the Insurance Company which opposed the claim tooth and nail before the tribunal having failed to get the dismissal of case against them ought to have filed an appeal before this court. Instead they have conveniently satisfied the award. Thereby indicating that all is not well even in the Insurance Companies where as stated earlier by this Bench repeatedly there is nexus between the false claims and the officers in selectively not filing an appeal even when the claimants are at wrong. This is one such appeal. Therefore, this court feel that when the claimant himself is a tortfeasor question of entertaining his claim petition which is not correct does not arise.

As rightly contended by learned counsel Sri Dilip Kumar merely because the claimant is under aged or he had a learning license at the relevant point of time his claim cannot be rejected when the driver of the other vehicle is proved to be at fault. But, in this proceedings, it is not just an under aged person riding the motorcycle. He is riding the motorcycle with impudence with two other persons being carried as pillion riders. As time and again observed by various courts in catena of decisions the motorcycle which is meant for two persons if driven with three as passengers neither the driver nor the pillion would be comfortable while riding the vehicle. Therefore, their contribution in causing the accident is higher than what it would be in others case. In the instant case, an youngster in the fag end of his teens riding motorcycle with two other persons and involving himself in an accident, in the complaint filed by him admit that he was riding the motorcycle with two others as pillion, however the police decline to charge sheet him. It is further seen that, the Insurance Company also accepts the verdicts of tribunal in awarding compensation to claimant for the mistake committed by himself. How the said claim was allowed and the same was satisfied by the insurance company is yet another enigma.

As stated earlier this kind of false claims should come to an end and there should be some firmness, while dealing with these kind of false and frivolous claims. The tribunal should dispassionately decide the claim, it should not wrongly get carried away with the notion merely because the complainant is injured, whether he had license or not he should be compensated is not the right approach. In the instant case such a mistake is committed by the tribunal. If the Insurance Company has already paid the compensation this court has got nothing to do with that.

But what is observed here is in a case where the mistake is on the claimant it is not being agitated by the insurer, till it has reached logic end. The Insurance Company has also fallen in line in trying to satisfy a false claim. With aforesaid observation this court feel that in the instant case accepting the false reasons given for condonation of delay and allowing the said application much less when there is absolutely no merit to consider claimants case either for enhancement or for confirmation of the compensation which is already awarded. With such observation, the application in IA 1/2012 is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.