M. SIDDAIAH Vs. KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the judgment dtd. 5/8/2013 passed by the XIII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, MACT ('the Tribunal' for short) in M.V.C.No.6553/2008, in dismissing the claim petition filed under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts are that, the petitioner being a native of D.K.Halli while he was standing near a petty shop of the said village at 8.00 p.m. on 10/5/2008, motor cycle bearing No.KA- 02/EL-1879 has dashed and injured him. Immediately he was shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore, for treatment. The petitioner seeking compensation has moved the Tribunal. The claim was opposed by the respondent. After taking the evidence, the Tribunal by its judgment dtd. 24/11/2009, allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.2,23,020.00. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has filed an appeal before this court numbered in M.F.A.No.2581/2012 and so also, the petitioner filed another M.F.A.No.7673/2011 seeking enhancement. By common judgment dtd. 13/3/2013, this court set aside the order of the Tribunal observing that the issue No.1 regarding negligence has been decided relying on the evidence of the medical officer at Victoria Hospital even though eye-witnesses are available in the form of Puttaswamy Gowda, he has not been examined, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to consider the claim petition regarding the negligence afresh with liberty to the parties to adduce further evidence. After the remand, the parties have further led the evidence whereas, on behalf of the petitioner, the eyewitness Puttaswamy Gowda has been examined as PW-3. After appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment holding that a 'hit and run' case is being converted into an accident by falsely implicating the motor cycle in question and dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this appeal on various grounds.