I IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated: This the 13"" day of September 2010___ BEFORE ' " THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE S.N.SATYANA:"€A3;fA\:1§f}K;_:VA' M.F.A.No.131'69/2006 (Mm. 'jg BETWEEN: . " " .' SR1 UMMER FAROOQ. s/O ABDUL RAZAK, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. R/O ANSARNAGARA,__ MANJANADY VILLAGJELO _ MANGALANTH1 POST';--- ~ _ MANGALORE TALUK, D.K, ' _ -- " APPELLANT (By Sri P K-"iRU?5Oi%\KP»'\5; 11 1.. THEUTNITED iNDm;-INSURANCE CO. LTD, . _ERNAO_I-«1 O.F--FIC.E No.4, POST BOX No.14, ,, SP1 VI'I'}'A.L MAIN ROAD. SURATHKAL, :ya€A1xIGALORE';"REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. V A. KUMAR. ._ , "3/'(3.._s:2:'rsI1vAs KOTTARY, ' 'R_/.0".-SUBASH NAGARA, KUTHAR, -- MANNUR VILLAGE, RANIPURA POST, ~~ MANGALORE TALUK, D.K. RESPONDENTS
G “‘._VV{By”ASRI s SRISHAILA, ADV. FOR R-1.)
THIS MFA FILED U / 5 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 1/3/2006
“”1
PASSED IN MVC NO.1393/O4 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDLDISTRICT JUDGE, MEMBER, MAc:’mi,
MANGALORE, D.K., DESMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION. ”
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEA:{Ii¢a_~ _
DAY, THE COURT DELWERED THE FOLLOWING: 2′
JUSoMEN_’g___ ”
This is claimants
judgment and award dateii-~..1V.3.20CVi6 ihis * 2′
claim petition in M.V.c.Npt.t.1’E3a3/Q4 of: the fire of the
MACT-II, D.K., Manga1’ore;’«
to this appeal are as
under: 2 V 2
appVe11an..,.t’ herein is the c1aj.mant–petitioner
below. Respondents 1 and 2 are
.21*eshpectiV:e1frespondents 2 and 1 in the court below.
The’~ea:Se of the claimant is that on 17.7.2004 at
7.00 p.m he was travelling in an autorickshaw
V _fbearing Regn.No.KA~19A 3250 from Assaigoli to his
house carrying the T.V which he had taken for repair.
“””\
His case is that, on the way, the said auto capsized,
as a result, he fell down and injured his left leg
causing fracture of femur and injury to his krlgee.
Hence, he filed the petition seeking
a sum of Rs.l0 lakhs from respondents?’:”E.._@d
the court below. In the
following issues were ‘framed:
1.
Whether the pevtitioner that he
sustained ‘~injur’i.e’st motor vehicle
accident that,” aeaaaaaa ;_17.7.2004 at
abof§i’t.__ Thipplipadavu in
” Konaj ivillllage only Konaje–Deralakatte road,
‘ ._while=.h~e was _t1j_aVe1liI1g in an autorickshaw
‘li’ai.ii5e-.ari:1gd’r._ No.KA–19A–3250 as a
passenger, due to rash and negligent driving
of the said autorickshaw by its driver?
the petitioner is entitled for
‘ -.«-compensation? If so, how much and from
which of the respondent?
What order / award?
4
3. The court below after recording the
evidence and on hearing the counsel for both.___the
parties, answered issue No.1 in the negative”_Mfor”g:’the
reason that, in the said accident, the M
auto is none other than the”brotheitginwiavv_of=the’1
claimant. There is nothing on’.__rec_ord shown
the vehicle was dariiagedgjand that ‘claimant
suffered injuries in caused the driver
of the said auto. H report to
substantiateflthat the ioffendingwhvehicle was involved
in the seenlfrom the evidence of the
petitioner accident the auto capsized
resultingflu’in:hfall” of’-the claimant from the said auto,
dlidfi notvmcause even a scratch to T.V the
carrying which is highly doubtful and
c”ann.o”t’ believed. Considering the nature of
A. accident and the injury that is suffered by the
and, the claimant not examining any
independent witness to support the fact of accident
causing injuries to him and as the driver of the said
“N
auto himself has given evidence as claimants Witness
and stated that because of his negligence.i*”‘—the
accident has taken place, the court below
declined to believe the said interested_vei*ai.ont_:’of
claimant supported by none
in–law who claims to bethc drivei9”–0f thpgk/ehicieij’; lln
his evidence, the said of states
that. except the Was
nobody on the roadgwhen. ‘took place and
nobody it
things into consideration,
the a finding regarding issue
that the-Vpet_itioner–claiInant has failed to prove
‘ Vlltliat»heasus’ta_ined injury in the motor accident alleged
place on 17.7.04 at about 7.00 RM.
n-earvllifhipplipadavu in Konaje village on Konaje–
l_l)’e’ralakatte road and it is also further held that the
petitioner has failed to prove that he was travelling in
the said auto bearing Regn.No.KA–l9A–325O as a
“‘”\
passenger at the relevant point of time when it is_said
to have been driven in a rash and negligent –4rfia.fi1fie,r
by his brother–in–law.
6. On going through the’ it
and the reasoning given thereiri.,_ this court finds”
the reasons for dismissal the claim’ iust it
and proper and there reason “either to
disbelieve the said t£):tV”it;t£f:rfere with the
finding the dismissing the
claim peitition, ‘ ”
filed by the claimant is
dismissedimdthodt’,_an§..”order as to cost.
sag
xtaqe