RAMAKRISHNA Vs. REVANNA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/claimant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.09.2014 passed in MVC No. 445/2010 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Hassan, (for short, "Tribunal") whereby the Tribunal dismissed his claim petition filed under Sec. 166 of MV Act with cost of Rs. 5,000/ -.

(2.) The case of the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal was, on 17.11.2009, while he was walking on the left side of Shravanur -Mandagere Road, at that time, the driver of the Tractor -Trailer bearing registration No. KA -11 -T -3780/3781 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him; resultantly, he sustained multiple grievous injuries; he was shifted to Mangala Hospital, Hassan where he was treated as inpatient for five days. He had spent more than Rs. 50,000/ - for his treatment. Hence, he filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/ - with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. under various heads against 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle and 2nd respondent/Insurer. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contested the claim. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the petition with cost of Rs. 5,000/ - vide judgment dated 30.10.2010. The appellant/claimant challenged the said order in MFA No. 1458/2011(MV) before this Court.

(3.) Sri. Amruthesh C. learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the claim petition was dismissed by relying on the evidence produced by the Insurer that the claimant had taken treatment at Government Hospital, Holenarasipura, on 16.11.2009, by colluding with owner of the vehicle and also in connivance with the police officials created the documents and filed false claim petition. In fact, he had not taken treatment 16.11.2009. On his requisition, the Medical Officer of the Government Hospital, Holenarasipura had given endorsement to the effect that name of the patient Ramakrishna is entered in the outpatient Register maintained in the hospital pertaining to 9.12.2010, but the same was not recorded in the inpatient Register and MLC Register. By inadvertence, the copy of the application given by the claimant to the hospital and also endorsement issued by the Surgeon of said hospital was not produced before the Tribunal. If one more opportunity is granted, the appellant will produce the documents in evidence which will definitely have bearing on the merits of the case, otherwise the appellant would suffer great loss and injustice. In this regard, he has filed IA No. 1/2014 seeking permission to produce additional documents. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal may be set -aside and matter may be remanded for fresh consideration after giving opportunity to the appellant to adduce additional evidence.