IN THE HXGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQPE
DATED THIS THE 25"" DAY 0:: MAY 2013.
BEFCRE
THE HON'BLE MR.3USTICE:-SUB-HAASH 5I.';cf®:_ A
MLSCELLANEOUS FI:€s;;;§P'TéETA--s, ' _
N0.15486,;"2(.)O7('M_\i')
BETWEEN:
Sallapuriyamma
W/0 \/enkatappa
Aged about 51 years
Chinnaiahnapalya' _ '
Indavaili Post; Ar{;éka£ j'a1uk"" "
Bangalore RL'nii=':.«£._VC5%s-f_§ ' SE APPELLANT
(By Sri: K.G.E3hat, Advs.)
AND:
1.
_~i.TVhF’e Mané”g’e«r.. …..
_ £v’t’~,¥’é; Okéentai Insurance Co. Ltd,,
La_ksh’m’E*T_ewers; NCLZOO/3
‘L514″fE.Q<3rf;.R.~;\/.Road
. "'~ Adja{ffeni:- to Bangaiore
H{:;s;:§t';3E! gangamre -4
S':.§:'Gundappa
S/0 Mtmivenkatapgaa
Baddarapaiya Viilage
Haragadde Pest; Aneka!
TalL:£<§ Barsgaéore Qist.
3. Muniraju
S/0 Chinnappa
Vaddarapaiya, Anekafi Taluk
Bangaiore Rura§ Dist. ..
{By Sri.M.Sowr’i Raju, Adv. for R1;
R2 served) ~
This M.F.A. is flied under “i?31{–:_}’tc$,f
against the judgment and av;’anfi_datéd ’22,O9’~V:iZG.§§?,.VVpaésed
in MVC I\%o.39OS,/2006 on shefijge Qf M’e-mfier; MACT, IV
Additional Judge, Ban.g’a~!..Qre_.Ci’ty’,t–:SC’CH’–6, dié’m’iSsing the
claim petition for c0mpén%s_atiC>nV.f?
This Ap$€F3;l:_’COfi;é§ng this day, the
Courtdeli\:1efei}««..tt;»<~3–':fQlVI0}g¢.E_n'g_:V
____ ..
‘ft-:.is” the claimant questioning the
judgVm_entL41a~~nd’ ayyanf M.\/.C. NO. 3905/’2FRs«.4,CiO i_ai<h:.._ V' A
3. The ciaim petitien was eontiested’-iii:}y.,.t’he’~~ir:i-smear.
denyihg the Envoivementewxf i:he__'”vehicVi»eV’%’jeahrti
entitfement of compensation. ‘V
4. The Tribunal eh evidence held
that the ciaimaiit .__has:”fa’iI’eeI.: involvement of
the vehicles. dismissed
the cIa_im..VpAet.igiuh:_,:A_a_Qa_ihee;A present appeai is
filed.
LearhedrCoemééifor the ciaimant submitted that
Aicfert-ificate issued by the hospitai authorities
‘::.hdwi[hg_Vi:’he-.e’ause of injury as road traffic accident. Since
t’r:e”‘::’iaih§a7%f1’f; aged weman and was admitted to the
hOS§iit.3iL after treatment her sen fiied a eerripiaint on
ie. after 5 days. The peiice er: ihvestigatieri has
~ fffieidiithe eharge sheet and the erirrzinai Case has ended in
conviction. The Tribunal has rejected the c:laim4j”peft–§t’l’o.:f1
only on the ground that one Raju, named to the coTfz:7§j’l–eijh*teé *
has not been examined’ He sub_mi.i:t__ed thet”‘t’heV»eVid’_ehc:e ll”
produced by the ciaimant do :;:s_rov_eetheta.’eeei-desit-et..__aotflé
involvement of the tractor,-..__no Eztoubt e:l;Lh§e,;fe,4_V_wa:§e
discrepancy as regards the na’me’of the’-oyiktner. lyloweveri.
the tractor involved §r’1A._4_t’l’:.e a’€A:cEdelt:t_V_w:a*e.Mmentioned in the
complaint.
6. counsel for the
insuraneej the hospital records
show due to hit and run. He
submitted’ thatthetevaits”ihordinate delay of 5 days in filing
the tompla’i’r:tV_:Vand.,’~solawléo, the claimant’s son – Raju has
“VV”‘v..rtotf:t._’E§eeen e>§amihe’d”.'”£f really; the cfaément has suffered
_’_ ¥lV”‘:jt_J’l’j{:lVE’3..:ti*léa_e1Cfjld€l'”llZ; due to the vehicle involved in the
a’c:.t’dent_4,.’t»;:e_ leould have immediately filed the Compiaintt
‘x_The eoheplaint is an afterthought. Only because the
A erirhénal ease has endeti in conviction, it cannot be hefe
ttzatttthe vehiele in ooestion wee involvee in the accident.
7. The Tnbunaf mainfy on three grounds has ;je:3′.et;*.:ed
the cfaim petition. Firstty, in the complaint,
the owner £3 wrongiy mentioned; Le. the
previous owner ie mentioned. Secendiy, Atiherfe’ is-ad’de§ey..,§n’
fiiing the complaint. Thirdlryj,,_clairn’a_n’t”s
fiied the complaint has not beeun;eȤ<an1ined;
8. No doubt, thehe’«§e’e”‘ compiaint.
The poiice sheet. It is
also stated; :_’:ése,_:ha_e”‘ended in conviction.
The independentty as to
whethder’ whether the vehide in
question viva; inveI.\_zed_ iryfhe accident and the accident was
due’~§’.:to:__jAraeh en”d«.,n_egvEigent driving of the vehicle by its
‘dfEv–e::»._F§2’en«:e}<a_minatEen of <:!aimant's son– Raju, és not a
g':fe'L:end the ctaim petition' However, the Tribunai
can4"ér3d'e.pendentiy decide the issue. I find that one mere
V' <§§§3ertuVe§ty ceuEd be given to the cfiaimant: te adduce
af";;r':her evédenee if any.
Q5-
9′ ‘°*CC0″dm9*’>’: the ap;3ea¥ is partty a¥l.<A.).z2;*j<Ve:'<:i-hf'Tfhve
judgment and award
dated 22.12.2801? or:
passed in M.V.C.
hgreby get a5§de_ The the WE’ Of
fresh consideration. matter is rer5£’2«iV_tt e–<_:Ti"1'fo t ?1e T~r.i,b:::fi§}'~f;§§r'._
JQEGE