N. LALITHA Vs. NAGARAJU MAJOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 11.6.2014 passed in MVC.No.4874/2011 by the MACT and Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, in dismissing their claim petition.

(2.) The facts leading to the case are as under: The appellants-claimants filed claim petition by contending that on 22.1.2011 at about 7.15 p.m. the husband of the first appellant namely K. Srinivasalu was crossing Bengaluru-Bellary Road, in front of one Byregowda's house at Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru, in East-West direction. At that juncture, the rider of the motor bike bearing Regn.No. KA-50/K-1158 came in North-South direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said K.Srinivasalu. The appellants further contended that on account of the impact, K.Srinivasalu fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to Columbia Asia Hospital, Hebbal, Bengaluru, where he was treated as inpatient from 22.01.2011 to 9.3.2011. Inspite of best treatment, deceased Sri. K.Srinivasulu succumbed to the injuries on 9.3.2011. The appellants contended that the deceased was hale and healthy and was working as a Technician at M/s.L & T Komatsu Limited and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. The appellants being wife and children and parents of the deceased claimed to be dependants of the deceased and hence, filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.2 crores.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for appellants-claimants would vehemently argue and contend that P.W.2 who is the eye witness has deposed with regard to the manner in which the accident took place. However, the same is discarded by the Tribunal which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. He would further argue that the person who accompanied the injured to the hospital has furnished the details of the accident and the hospital authorities have made a note in the case sheet as a case of RTA occurred while crossing the road and was hit by a two wheeler. In this background, the learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the case sheets marked as Ex.R3 would establish the involvement of the bike and that the hospital authorities have immediately reported the accident to the jurisdictional Hebbal Traffic police and as such there is no delay in on the part of the injured or the hospital authorities. The learned counsel for appellants would further contend that since the hospital authorities were intimated in regard to the road traffic accident, it was incumbent on the part of the jurisdictional police to register the case. Lapse on the part of the police Officers would in no way falsify a genuine claim and that these material aspects have not at all been taken into consideration by the Tribunal.