North West Karnataka Rd. Transport Corp. Vs. Gourabai & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3171 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15079 of 2007]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 27.2.2007 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No. 2098 of 2005 (MV)]
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15079 of 2007]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 27.2.2007 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No. 2098 of 2005 (MV)]
Petitioner: North West Karnataka Rd. Transport Corp.
Respondent: Gourabai & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3171 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15079 of 2007]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 27.2.2007 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No. 2098 of 2005 (MV)]
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15079 of 2007]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 27.2.2007 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No. 2098 of 2005 (MV)]
Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 01, 2009
Appearances:
Appearances
Mr. R.S. Hedge and Mr. P.P. Singh, Advocates, for the Appellants.
Mr. Mallikarjun S. Mycar and Mr. E.R. Sumathy, Advocates, for the Respondents.
Mr. R.S. Hedge and Mr. P.P. Singh, Advocates, for the Appellants.
Mr. Mallikarjun S. Mycar and Mr. E.R. Sumathy, Advocates, for the Respondents.
Head Note:
MOTOR VEHICLES
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 166 – Accidental death – MACT (Tribunal) awarding compensation – Plea that deceased died by falling from house and not in any accident involving corporation’s bus, rejected by Tribunal & High Court holding that there was indirect admission about deceased sustaining injury in vehicular accident – Evidence of doctor and document not considered. Held, award by Tribunal was unsustainable and wrongly upheld by High Court.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 166 – Accidental death – MACT (Tribunal) awarding compensation – Plea that deceased died by falling from house and not in any accident involving corporation’s bus, rejected by Tribunal & High Court holding that there was indirect admission about deceased sustaining injury in vehicular accident – Evidence of doctor and document not considered. Held, award by Tribunal was unsustainable and wrongly upheld by High Court.
JUDGEMENT:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. Challenge in the said appeal was to an award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. VII, Bijapur (in short MACT). An award of Rs.2,59,400/- was made. The main contention of the appellant before the MACT as well as before the High Court was that the deceased did not sustain any injury in any accident involving the bus of the corporation. Reference was made to the evidence of the doctor, who had admitted the deceased to the hospital, that the deceased had suffered head injury due to fall from the height of 8 to 10 feet of his own house. Though this was specifically stated in the written statement, the MACT and the High court brushed aside the same stating that there was indirect admission about the deceased having sustained injury in vehicular accident. The effect of the evidence of the doctor and exhibit R-1 does not appear to have been looked into by the MACT and the High Court. MACT did not place reliance on the document R-1 on the ground that the brother of the injured stated that he did not know what was written in the document and his signature was taken on one page. This conclusion overlooks from the fact that a doctor will not take a signature on a piece of paper mentioning something which is not correct. Exhibit R-1 establishes beyond the shadow of doubt that the injuries sustained were not on account of any vehicular accident. That being so, the MACT and the High Court were not justified in making any award. The order of the MACT and High Court stands set aside.
4. The appeal is accordingly, allowed.
**************
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. Challenge in the said appeal was to an award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. VII, Bijapur (in short MACT). An award of Rs.2,59,400/- was made. The main contention of the appellant before the MACT as well as before the High Court was that the deceased did not sustain any injury in any accident involving the bus of the corporation. Reference was made to the evidence of the doctor, who had admitted the deceased to the hospital, that the deceased had suffered head injury due to fall from the height of 8 to 10 feet of his own house. Though this was specifically stated in the written statement, the MACT and the High court brushed aside the same stating that there was indirect admission about the deceased having sustained injury in vehicular accident. The effect of the evidence of the doctor and exhibit R-1 does not appear to have been looked into by the MACT and the High Court. MACT did not place reliance on the document R-1 on the ground that the brother of the injured stated that he did not know what was written in the document and his signature was taken on one page. This conclusion overlooks from the fact that a doctor will not take a signature on a piece of paper mentioning something which is not correct. Exhibit R-1 establishes beyond the shadow of doubt that the injuries sustained were not on account of any vehicular accident. That being so, the MACT and the High Court were not justified in making any award. The order of the MACT and High Court stands set aside.
4. The appeal is accordingly, allowed.
**************
