VITHAL v. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NWKRTC, BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI

(BY MISS. AKSHATA KOLI, ADV. FOR SRI. S. L. MATTI, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS FROM LOWER COURT IN M.V.C NO.1339/2015 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL BELAGAVI AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26-04-2016 PASSED IN M.V.C NO.1339/2015 BY THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL BELAGAVI AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13515 MFA No. 102488 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This appeal is filed by the injured/claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 26.4.2016 passed in MVC No.1339/2015 on the file of learned VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi1.

2. Sri. G.R. Turamari, learned counsel appellant/injured submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting the claim petition without appreciating the fact that the appellant met with road accident on 23.10.2014 and immediately he was shifted to BIMS Hospital, Belagavi and thereafter, he was shifted to Vijaya Ortho & Trauma Centre, Belagavi. He submits that the medical records indicate that the appellant was not in a position to go and register the complaint; considering the delay of 2 days in registering the complaint, the claim petition was rejected by the Tribunal without properly appreciating the other evidence available on record. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and to 1 ‘Tribunal’ for short - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13515 MFA No. 102488 of 2016 award compensation by considering the injuries sustained by the appellant.

3. Per contra, Ms. Akshata Koli appearing on behalf of Sri. S.L. Matti, learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation vehemently opposes the appeal and submits that the Tribunal has recorded a finding for rejection of the claim petition. She further submits that nothing was prevented the appellant to produce the medical records from the BIMS Hospital, Belagavi, where the appellant has initially admitted and therefore, non- production of such documents, created a doubt in the mind of the Tribunal with regard to occurrence of the accident. The appellant has not assigned proper explanation for the delay in registering the complaint. She adds that generally in the accident cases, the hospital, where the victim takes treatment, sends intimation to the police, but in the instant case, no such intimation was sent by the BIMS Hospital, Belagavi or Vijaya Ortho & Trauma Centre, Belagavi, which further creates a doubt with regard to occurrence of the accident. Thus, she seeks to sustain the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and prays to dismiss the apppeal. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13515 MFA No. 102488 of 2016

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the Tribunal records.

5. The claim petition was filed by the appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the accidental injuries sustained by him. As per pleadings and evidence of PW1, he met with road accident on 23.10.2014 and he could not register the complaint as he was admitted in Hospital, as is evident from Ex.P2- complaint. The said explanation in Ex.P2-complaint is sufficient to come to a conclusion that the delay in filing the complaint is unintentional. This view is supported by enunciation of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan & Others2, wherein it has held that delay in lodging the complaint cannot be a sole basis to dismiss the claim petition. In addition, the jurisdictional police after investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the NWKRTC bus for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. The charge sheet material indicates that the accident was caused by rash & negligent driving of the driver of the bus and in the said 2 2011(4) SCC 963 - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13515 MFA No. 102488 of 2016 accident, the appellant has sustained injuries referred in Ex.P8- Wound Certificate. Considering the charge sheet material and Ex.P8-Wound Certificate issued by Vijaya Ortho & Trauma Centre, Belagavi, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has committed grave error in rejecting the claim petition only on the ground of delay of 2 days in fling the FIR.

6. Having come to a conclusion that the appellant has sustained injuries and taking note of Ex.P8-Wound Certificate, this Court is required to assess the compensation for the injuries suffered by the appellant in the road accident. Admittedly, the appellant has not examined any doctor to consider the disability suffered by him in the road accident, nor produced the disability certificate. The medical evidence available on record viz., Ex.P8-Wound Certificate, Ex.P9-OPD Slip, Ex.P10-Discharge Summary, Ex.P11-medical bills amounting to Rs.19,221/- indicate that the appellant has sustained head injury. Considering the aforesaid documentary evidence on record and in the absence of Disability Certificate and Expert’s evidence, I am of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if a global compensation of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to the appellant without any - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13515 MFA No. 102488 of 2016 interest. Further, the appellant is entitled to the medical expenses as per Ex.P11 amounting to Rs.19,221/- by the respondent/Corporation.

7. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) The appeal stands allowed in part. b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is set-aside. Consequently, the claim petition filed by the appellant is partly allowed. c) The claimant shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.69,221/- without interest. d) The respondent/Corporation shall deposit the aforesaid compensation amount before Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. e) On such deposit, the same shall be paid to the appellant/claimant. f) Registry shall return the TCR to the Tribunal forthwith. g) Draw modified award accordingly. h) No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE JTR/ct-an