LAWS(KAR)-2017-9-132

SRI. PRAKASH N.A. Vs. SRI. N.R. VENKATESH S/O RAMAPPA R/AT MUDUVATHI VILLAGE AND POST KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT 563101 & ORS.

Decided On September 21, 2017
Sri. Prakash N.A. Appellant
V/S
Sri. N.R. Venkatesh S/O Ramappa R/At Muduvathi Village And Post Kolar Taluk And District 563101 And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the legality of the, award dated 15.10.2015, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Kolar, whereby for the injuries suffered by the appellant, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition.

(2.) Shortly stated the facts of the case are that on 27.09.2010, the petitioner claims that he and his brother, Prakash, had gone to Kolar to purchase manure. After purchasing the manure they were returning to their village, Neelakantapura. They were riding a TVS Heavy Duty Motor-Cycle on the left side of the road. When they reached Kolar Nadadapalli Road, at about 10.15 pm, another two wheeler, a TVS Victor GX Motor Cycle, bearing Regn.No.KA-07-L-761, came from behind, in rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the appellant's motorcycle. Due to the impact, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was rushed to R.L. Jalappa Hospital and Research Centre at Kolar. After having recovered from the injuries, he filed a claim petition. In order to support his case, he examined himself as a witness, and submitted fourteen documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company examined single witness, and submitted a single document. After assessing the evidence, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

(3.) Mr. K. Vishwanath, the learned counsel for the appellant, has pleaded that the learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that there was delay of seven days in lodging of the criminal compliant with the police. Since the appellant was hospitalized, the criminal complaint could not, be lodged. With the jurisdictional police. However, despite the fact that the said explanation was given, the learned Tribunal has ignored the same. Therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set-aside by this Court.