High Court Karnataka High Court

Rangamma W/O Aradaiah vs C Girish on 5 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Rangamma W/O Aradaiah vs C Girish on 5 January, 2010
Author: N.K.Patil And Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 51%' DAY OF JANUARY. 201.0,»
:PRESENT: "it
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. ii   

AND 

THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE BVQSEEENNAEE GOW'Iu)'A  

M.F.A.NO.115'(36?OF20G6(EVT\.2fi « M
BEIWEEN: V ' L

Rangamma,

W/0 Ara._d'ai_ah,  H .1
Aged a:bO'i';:1?E- 53 :3-2'ea'rs;' . 
Occ; Ni} .{_"\/T'~egj'et:é1t>:1.r_:: "w:_nd0rvat me time of accident)
Resiaiemggf Kotteig'::ra'ha11i;'»g 

,Maga"d~§_ to"w;r:~. ~ ' *  

Bai}.ga}o_r€~.. ' «,  _ 

_  *    ....Appc:}}ar1t:
{S»r:'gt.M,C.Urr;21§1€v::1mma. Advocate}

  

Age?'1'\_r3{a}01'.
Resbf Gajagere.
" K_}E3.M.Post.
_ Magadi Taluk,
 Bangalore District.

 ..  The Manager.

O1'ier3t.a1 In _/_,,g:,:::.Q.@'Lt(i..



Sam pige Road.
Malleshwaran1.
Ya.thirajmL1t' building,
Banga]erewO3.

 R€3Sp()I1d€'?IlVl'-3?'._ 
(By S1*i.R.Rajag0palai1. Advocate for R-2: J  
Rim served)

***=i==?==?=

This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) or

Judgment: dated: 3/05/2006;__  "in. "
No.6949/20O4 on the file eftr.l__1e II Add]. Jadge..._C()L_1§rt. of._>

Small Causes, Member, l'\/EAST. lVief(r0.p§iliti;11iArea,
Bangalore (SCCH--l3}. partly a'ilowi_r1g 1;I"ie._elain1F petition
and seeking €l1h£1l1C€ffI~E3l1l oi"tiompeii-s_ai.ion."' 

This MFA Comingl onlioi  '_~_i.l'11s day. N.K.
PATIL. J ., delivered theV--fol:lV0wir1g,_: '  

  M E N T
'i'h'is éippea_l'Vi34.jf'ilie._ela.in1ant: is directed against the

j1.:(ig;i'1't>1ji: 'V ci»21l:e(i V'3"' l\/Iay 2006. passed in

°%M,i7'.e.i'=i;i.é949/2004, on the file of the 11 Additional

 Small Causes, and Member, Motor

A(:e'i~dei1i. ' "V  aims Triburial. Met.r0p0lit:ari, Area.

.r,VlE3;;1er;ggald're. [for short. Tribunal') for compensai.i0r1 on



the §.§1'<')uI1d that. the Clairn petilicm filed by her l'lE{S been

categorically CllS1T]i-S8661 by the 'l'ribunal.

2. 'I'l'1e appellant elaima-ml. claims to lJ'e"xaegL;§14a?_3le

vendor, aged about 50 years. a11d_.~;: .. _:'res'i-dierlt 01?. 0'

K()ttaga1'ahalli village. Magztdi 'l':;_'_1lL1l«:...eBemgé1.l.dre'Bl-s_t:r§;:1:l.

That on 26A«l.O~2004. at ab€)i,1_l 

was walking on 'the  '  lfiad at
Ja1l21.mangala~Magadl "'l.€ne1'<i'l-l_L11{:2;v0lrl4'I{§3$;lggn'21h211li. At that
time. a moto1~'.::_V cle /BMW
3360   and negligent and
dashed  21 result of the same.
  ..-and She was immediately

shifted  _ltVi'1»e':-- l\A/E21g§J'di Hospital and the-.reaI't.er

 t'c)"veVi<tm.1'ia..H0spiféillf01* furtl1er tr'eat.me1'1t. where she

   26 102004 to 03~12w2004.

 On a<:e.ou1'1t of the injuries sus1.ained in the

 a

seeking compensation.
4. We have gone _tl'1ro%l,1gli"v~the"grounds urged in

the memorandum Q-.9"a»ppea'l .'Aa,ncl'Vv_t,1[{ev.v"Qrlginal records

placecillbeéblfc: L1s':f3tt'arei7a.,;V'l-ly. "Af'te1' thorough evaluation of

the 01'-égin_21lV reCd1fds'.~,tti~~.,j's;.. manifest on the face of the

jtl1dg,:11e11tapasssgdxby'v_'l*i'x'l3t:11e1l that. it has not (tomn1it:t.ed

 '  u  a  """ " 2 "2  2 'i , '  
ary erml of 11" 01 m1i('llll useful 1: t_\/ in drslnlssnlf

   f)etit..i()11 filed by appellant. The 'l'ribunal has

t.al;_er1 t=he"sald decision after carefully assessing the oral

 and zd,o;eL1me11te11y evidence available on file and by

 ass.ig:_r3i:1g valid and c:()ge11t. reasons from parag;"rapI"as 12

._  E5 01' its jucignlen 



5. E1 is si_gi'1ii'iea11t t:o note  it-selftiizit PW2 --
[Doctor has been examined by appeiiant and he has

appeared and deposed in his evideime that the Virijtlred

appellant. was in fact" brot,eght'. to Victoria Hos;§'5i'talfinyfone _

Krishna. relative of the appellant for"~tr¢at_'ment __ol'=

fracture for tibia only and not.  i*'i}5t-iia  "for

trc-':atment. of the injuries *.<f;L'r--s_t.e1iIied in t.ii1i_4e":ir';a_dHt.raffie_'

accident: that occurrecl at e1_bioL1:t.  = 2E§l10~2004
hit by a Car. near Kot:taga14a11a1ii  was examined
at about 1     as per the
the Hospital. she was
zidrnittntedii   PM. on 26w10«2004- and

disc:V11a1'geef*on V8?-12'r:2(3O4. "the ease 1*e.(*or(i..s are also

  i1'1o.«oh1'pl.eterand  only from 28~10~2004 onwards

 a1j1.ciVnt'.It1°e:je'~ his  recital about the treatment ;___§iven from

 only and there  no recital for having given

 i,i-eettrrzeiit, on 26-10200-4 or on 27-10-2004. Furt.h€1".

t_here  also no re(:it.a1 in the (:'21_<;e rectorcis as to how

i' = ...-she sustziiinieci the injt 'ices whether" through Road TI'£iffiC

 



6

accident or ihrougli some other i1'1cide1"1t.s. Further, it
is also sig11ifiea11t to note that. the FIR eniry sl1C(:L1rreci on aceourll of rash drixflrlgcfiife. 1:'E*:§.-*5

lVIot.or Cycle bearing RogiS1:rat.i(')n 

whereas the person who b1'()L1g_'r11i... 2:l;§l;ljlellAé'11l',."irljureg:illl

to the hospital. one. Sri. K1'iV::;h11:a-.eA.:21 l'erele1teixr<¥"l§;3ef: "the

appellant. has stated in VuneqLii--x{oo--:;1l t'.er%11s"the1ll§ the*

accident occurred on 26~lOe;2;-004,v. hit   nearll

Kottagarahalli and the i11}L1oree:f~.xv21sLA exar'r1--i,r.1edV.'3a.t' about

1.

00 PM. on 26–10–2″Gfl(–1–. given by

the eviheiéhee of the person who
br()L1gli1t ‘the Hospital are completely

C()ni::1″c_V1Cli(t1’4oi3«Tll “c1,I.T:–Cl ‘*_21r'(§ not consis1.em. In cross

ex’a.rfiiI1′::xtion, Shlevllmhlas admitted that the two wheeler

her and she has taken treatment. at

GAo.\{t,. _.E’losjpil”al, Magadi. The Xerox Copy of the

[)lSCh21I_?gg€ Summary Ex.P3 p1’o(:lu.eed by her shows

she was 1’n–patie.:’1t from 26 102004 to SA 122004

V. …_:1:t’: Victoria Hospital adnl1it.t:ed at about 8:20

5

PM on 264102004. On eare.f1.1l reaappreeiatioii of the
evidence of PW} and PW2 Doetoi’, Coupled with the

dotfumentary eviclerwe E2x.Ri produced by I’)(i>cttor”-PW2,

it clearly establishes beyond all .1’ea1sc)m1ble cV1e()__t4:b’t’s=;e:”tihat

the appellant has failed to substantiate t.l1ef{t.._:tl”;jee’~ve}iiele

in qtiestiorl was involved in the z§iCc:ide’11t.t_’I’l*: as:-.peet of

the matter has been rightly _lo0ke.ri limo aifiél.e()1’isidered*..

by the Tribunal and a Sp€(?ifilC1w._fl’I1difig l1.2.1S’ebeerireeorded
by it. after eritie;a_l . €V.;’_’VllL1:.’rl,,lv.xl(;’_1:1~._n'(If the oral and
documentary evide11ee..ava.ila1ble 0’f1’~£”ile._’

V’E5′.l”‘F’urrher:§*-: ‘*0131′._ev21.lt1″é;t:it)h of the original records
t’.111’e2idba.1’e._.it7:5i’11Aei”ge’53_t”ha’t.’ the reaso1’1i1’1g given by the
TI’lbL1I1Ell._Z1t. paragr21;)l”1′:,s_”iii and 15 of its judgment are

st:1’ie-tly in” ._e()’ns'()11é1nee with the relevant, material

21x/aiiletble on file.’v’—–‘.{‘hc:1’ef()1’e. keeping in view all these

‘ ;fe*’.e.v-c1r_v1’t:~factors. We are of the considered opinion that.

.t.he_ Ve1}jp%j_l.l_’;1i1t’lias not: proved her case nor has made out

elngr g(;)tit}.«–g1′()L1nd for awarding e0mpensat’.i0r1. Hence,

we dee..”11()tfl find any jt.1st.ifi(:at’ion or go()d grotmd to

i1″1te1*fe:’e in the we}! <?()11sidei'e(i ji.1cig__gnie1'1E. passeci by
Tribunal. Th€l'€f()I'€. the appeal filed by zippellant is
liable to be clisn'1iss(3-(1 as devciid of merits. A(_:c:c)f'd'i'i}gly.

it dismissed.