M.S. MANJUNATHA Vs. M.D.LOKESHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant is in appeal challenging the dismissal of the claim petition.

(2.) The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the accident occurred on 30/10/2006 and the police, after investigation of a crime, had submitted a 'B' report and nearly two years thereafter, the son of the deceased had initiated a proceedings under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C., on the basis of which, a crime was registered against the owner and the driver of the autorickshaw and they were also subsequently charge sheeted and these undisputed facts clearly prove that the autorickshaw in question was implicated only for the purpose of securing compensation.

(3.) It is strongly contended by Sri Ashok Patil, learned counsel for the Insurer that the Tribunal was justified in recording a finding that the involvement of the autorickshaw was not proved and therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal was correct. He also sought to highlight the fact that the son of the deceased did not even state in the private complaint as to the source of his knowledge to implicate the autorickshaw and therefore, this was also a strong factor to uphold the judgment of the Tribunal.