V. Sunith Kumar Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1173556
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided OnAug-14-2014
Case NumberM.F.A.No. 9176 of 2009 (MV)
JudgeN.K. PATIL
AppellantV. Sunith Kumar
RespondentICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another
Excerpt:
(prayer: this mfa is filed u/s 173(1) of mv act, against the judgment and award dated: 21/10/2008 passed in mvc no. 1467/2008 on the file of the v additional judge, member, motor accident claims tribunal, court of small causes, mayohall unit, bangalore (scch-20), dismissing the claim petition for compensation.) 1. this appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 21st october 2008, passed in mvc no. 1467/2008, by the v additional judge, member, motor accident claims tribunal, court of small causes, mayohall unit, bangalore (scch-20), (for short, 'tribunal"), for awarding reasonable compensation on the ground that, the tribunal is not justified in dismissing the claim petition. 2. the appellant claims to be aged about 18 37ears and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. it is the case of the appellant that he met with an accident at about 8:15 a.m. on 18-07-2007 when he was crossing old madras road, near muthu mariamma temple, near tin factory, bangalore, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of car bearing registration no.ka-53/m-4995. due to the impact, the appellant sustained grievous injuries and took treatment at chinmaya mission hospital, spending huge amount. 3. on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition under section 166 of the motor vehicles act, before the tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of rs. 15,00,000/- against the insurance company and the owner of the offending vehicle. the said claim petition had come up for consideration before the tribunal on 21s" october, 2008. 4. upon notice to the parties, first respondent/' insurer appeared before the tribunal and failed a detailed statement of objections, denying the very occurrence of accident, the injuries sustained by the appellant and particularly the involvement of the vehicle in question and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. in spite of issue of notice to the owner of the offending vehicle, he remained ex-parte.  5. the appellant, in order to substantiate his case, examined his father, natural guardian as pw1, himself as pw2 and the doctor who treated him as pw3 and got marked documentary evidence as exs.p1 to p71. pw3 produced certain documents namely two registers with respect to intimation to police station, medico legal case maintained in chinmaya mission hospital, entry pertaining to the appellant etc. at exs.c1, ci (a), c2 and c2(a). whereas, the first respondent did net choose to enter the witness box nor produce or got marked any documentary evidence. 6. after going through the material available on file, including the pleadings of the parties and after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also the insurer and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, the tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by appellant, holding that, the appellant has utterly failed to substantiate his case that the injuries sustained by him is on account of the road traffic accident caused by the driver of car bearing registration no.ka-53/m-4995 on 18-07-2007 at about 8:15 a.m. on old madras road, near muthumariamma temple, near tin factory. being aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition by the tribunal, the appellant has filed the appeal before this court, seeking to set aside the judgment and award passed by tribunal and award reasonable compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident. 7. i have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment and award passed by tribunal and heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant. 8. it is the case of the appellant that, the tribunal grossly erred in not awarding any compensation and dismissing the claim petition. it is contended that the tribunal failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and instead of coming to the conclusion that the car bearing registration no.ka- 53/m-4995 has caused the accident, has wrongly come to the conclusion that the said vehicle is not involved in the accident while the appellant was crossing the road. it is further contended that the tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence of pw2, the appellant, who is the eye witness for the said accident and he has specifically stated that the vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. the tribunal further erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove that he was engaged in crossing old madras load near tin factory and the driver of the car drove the same negligently, causing accident to the appellant, resulting in injuries and disability to him. further, it is also contended that the tribunal has failed to appreciate that the injuries suffered by the appellant who suffered injury to radiollor nerve, neck and right shoulder, left upper and lower limbs and treated as inpatient at chinmaya mission hospital and subsequent follow-up treatment at various ayurvedic massag and thereby suffered lot of pain and agony. the tribunal further failed to appreciate the evidence of pw3, doctor who treated the appellant and assessed the permanent disability at 20% to the whole body and thus erred in not awarding any compensation. therefore, it is contended that the impugned judgment and award passed by tribunal, holding that the appellant failed to establish actionable negligence against the offending vehicle, is liable to be set aside and award reasonable compensation for the injuries and disability suffered by appellant. 9. learned counsel appearing for appellant vehemently submitted that, in fact, the compensation calculated by tribunal at rs. 1,34,300/- for the injuries and disability suffered by appellant in the road traffic accident,, is on the lower side and liable to be enhanced reasonably. 10.  per contra, learned counsel appearing for first respondent/ insurer, inter alia contended and substantiated the impugned judgment and award passed by tribunal, stating that the same is passed after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and after recording a specific finding of fact at paragraphs 14 and 15 of its judgment that the appellant has utterly failed to prove the occurrence of accident on the aforesaid time, date and place of accident. the said reasoning given by tribunal is well founded, well reasoned and therefore, interference in the same is not called for. 11.  after hearing the learned counsel appearing for appellant, after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by tribunal, and after due consideration of the entire material available on file, the only point that arise for my consideration in this appeal is, whether the tribunal is justified in dismissing the claim petition?" 12.  after critical evaluation of the entire material available on file, it can be seen that the tribunal, after assessing the oral evidence of pws 1 to 3 and documentary evidence at exs.pl to p71, has rightly dismissed the claim petition, holding that the appellant has failed to establish that the alleged injuries sustained by appellant are on account of the road traffic accident. 13. after re-appreciation of the entire oral evidence of pws1 and 2, it can be seen that, they have stated that after the accident, appellant has been shifted to chinmaya mission hospital by the driver of the car for treatment. in the written statement filed by the insurer, it has denied the allegation regarding reason and mode of occurrence of the accident as alleged by the appellant. in the cross-examination pw1 submitted that he never witnessed the accident. in the cross-examination of pw2, appellant herein, he has stated that there was a delay of six months in filing complaint, as the respondent no.2/owner of the offending car and the driver of the vehicle under took to bear the medical and miscellaneous expenses and therefore, immediately his father did not file the complaint. pw2, appellant has stated that the reason for the delay in lodging the complaint is not disclosed before police. 14. it is further significant note from the evidence of pw2, appellant herein that, earlier, he had stated that prior to accident, he saw the appearance of the car at a distance of 100 feet and in the place of accident there are zebra marks, signal pole. thereafter, he has stated that contents of the sketch regarding absence of zebra marks and signal pole are wrong and incorrect and denied the suggestion that in view of his negligence crossing of the road, the alleged accident took place and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the car. he further stated that, the police never came to chinmaya mission hospital when he was taking treatment. the contents of the documents pertaining to crime no. 13/08 of k.r. puram traffic p.s. corroborates the oral evidence of pws. 1 and 2 regarding date, time, place, reason, mode and consequence of the accident, involvement of the car bearing registration no.ka-53- m-4995 in the occurrence of the accident. the charge sheet shows that after investigation, police have charge sheeted the driver of the car bearing no.ka-53/m-4995 for having committed the offence punishable u/s 279, and 338 of ipc r/w. sec. 134 (a) and (b) r/w. sec. 187 of imv act. 15. further, in the evidence of pw3, dr. murali kumar.v of chinmaya mission hospital, it is stated that on 18-07-2007 at 6:30 a.m.. mr. sunith kumar.v, i.e. the appellant, aged about 17 years came to casualty with a history of r.t.a. and injuries. during cross- examination of pw5, he has produced some registers pertaining to intimation sent to the police regarding appearance of the patients with injuries to the at exs.c1 and c2 and the relevant pages which are concerned to the appellant are marked at exs.c1 (a) and c2(a). the oral evidence of pw3 and contents of the page marked at ex. ci (a) show that, on 18-07-2007 at 6:30 a.m., the appellant along with mr. mohan went to chinmaya mission hospital stating that on the same day, at about 5:45 a.m. in view of accident occurred involving the vehicles bearing registration nos.ka-03 4583 and ka-53-m-4995 on old madras road, near ngef, appellant suffered injuries. the oral evidence of pw3 and contents of the page marked at exs.c2(a) reveal that on 18-07-2007 at about 8:30 a.m., the appellant went to chinmaya mission hospital stating that on the same day at 8:30 a.m. in an accident that occurred on old madras road hear shankthi temple, mariyamma temple, he has suffered injuries. in the cross-examination, pw3 stated that after five months in january 2008, when the appellant came to chinmaya mission hospital and insisted, he has prepared and issued intimation marked at ex.c2(a). the intimation slip marked at ex. p. 4 is the copy of the page marked at ex.c2(a). the f.i.r. and complaint reveal that on 07-01- 2008 at about 1:00 p.m. on the basis of the complaint given by pw1, the father of appellant, the k.r.puram police have registered a case in crime no. 13/2008 against the driver of the car bearing no.ka-53-m-4995 for having committed offences punishable under  sections 279, 337 of i.p.c. by causing injuries to the appellant by dashing the car to the appellant on 18-07- 07 at about 8:15 a.m. on old madras road, near muthumariyamma temple. 16.  further, it can be seen that, neither the evidence of driver of the car nor the independent eye witness or the evidence of investigation officer is available. pws1 and 2 have not explained when as per ex. ci (a), the appellant went to chinmaya mission hospital at about 6:30 a m. on 18-07-2007 and for what reasons appellant was present on the same day at about 8:00 a.m. on old madras road, near om shakthi temple i.e., muthumariyamma temple and none of the parties have produced documents regarding steps taken by the indiranagar police on the basis of the intimation marked at exs.c.1(a), c2(a) and ex.p.4. 17.  further, even though during cross- examination, pw2 has explained the reason for the delay caused in filing the complaint, appellant has not explained the discrepancies found at exs.c1 (a), c2(a), oral evidence of the pw3 and his evidence regarding time of the occurrence of the accident, place of the occurrence of the accident, time of his appearance at chinmaya mission hospital, identification number of the vehicles involved in the accident i.e., concerned to the injuries might have been suffered by him. 18. it can be seen further that, the evidence of pw3, doctor to the effect that, after five months, i.e. in january 2008, when appellant came to and insisted he has prepared and issued the intimation marked at ex.c2(a). it reveals from the said document that, pw3 and chinmaya mission hospital authorities used to prepare and issue intimation addressed to the police at the instance of the appellants and to the same, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not explained for what reasons the evidence of pw3 and contents of the ex. ci (a) regarding time of the appearance of the appellant with injuries to chinmaya mission hospital and place of the occurrence of the accident, vehicles concerned to the injuries might have been suffered by the appellant are to be disbelieved and ignored the deletion of the vehicle bearing registration no.ka 03/4583 in the intimation slip marked at ex.c2(a) and police records and variation in the time and place of occurrence of the accident, appearance of the appellant to the hospital creates doubt in the genuineness and trust worthiness of the police records and oral evidence of pws 1 and 2. 19. further, the evidence of pws. 1 and 2, contents of the police records does not corroborate with the evidence of pw3, contents of the slip marked at ex, ci (a) regarding place, time of the occurrence of the accident, vehicles concerned to the injuries might have been suffered by the appellant. in view of the absence of the evidence of independent eye witness and investigation officer, the evidence of pwsl and 2 and contents of police records is rightly not believed by tribunal. on the basis of oral evidence of pws 1 and 2, intimation slip marked at ex.c2(a) and police records it can be inferred that pw3, chinmaya mission hospital and investigation officer i.e., p.s.i, of k.r. puram traffic police station stood behind the appellant and they were hand in glove in the entire case. 20. further, the contents of ex, ci (a) and evidence of pw3 to the effect that on 18-07-2007 at 6:00 a.m., appellant came to hospitai with injuries forces to disbelieve the oral evidence of pws 1 and 2 and contents of the documents pertaining to crime no. 13/2008 regarding time, place of the occurrence of the accident, involvement of the vehicle bearing registration no.ka-53/m-4995 in the occurrence of the accident. therefore, the tribunal dismissed the claim petition, holding that the evidence placed by the appellant are not sufficient to presume that on 18-07- 2007 at 8:15 a.m. on old madras road, near tin factory, om shakthi temple, appellant was engaged in crossing the road and at that time a car bearing registration no.ka-53/m-4995 dashed against the appellant resulting in the injuries to the appellant.  21. the discussion, reasoning and finding given by the tribunal from paragraphs 7 to 14 are after critical evaluation of the entire material available on its file and the same being just, fair and proper, i do not find any justification or good ground to interfere in the well considered and well reasoned judgment and award passed by tribunal. hence, interference in the same is unwarranted. 22. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by appellant is liable to be dismissed as being devoid of merit. accordingly, it is dismissed.
Judgment:

(Prayer: This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated: 21/10/2008 passed in MVC No. 1467/2008 on the file of the V Additional Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore (SCCH-20), dismissing the claim petition for compensation.)

1. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 21st October 2008, passed in MVC No. 1467/2008, by the V Additional Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore (SCCH-20), (for short, 'Tribunal"), for awarding reasonable compensation on the ground that, the Tribunal is not justified in dismissing the claim petition.

2. The appellant claims to be aged about 18 37ears and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. It is the case of the appellant that he met with an accident at about 8:15 A.M. on 18-07-2007 when he was crossing Old Madras Road, near Muthu Mariamma Temple, near Tin Factory, Bangalore, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Car bearing Registration No.KA-53/M-4995. Due to the impact, the appellant sustained grievous injuries and took treatment at Chinmaya Mission Hospital, spending huge amount.

3. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- against the Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 21s" October, 2008.

4. Upon notice to the parties, first respondent/' Insurer appeared before the Tribunal and failed a detailed statement of objections, denying the very occurrence of accident, the injuries sustained by the appellant and particularly the involvement of the vehicle in question and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. In spite of issue of notice to the owner of the offending vehicle, he remained ex-parte. 

5. The appellant, in order to substantiate his case, examined his father, natural guardian as PW1, himself as PW2 and the Doctor who treated him as PW3 and got marked documentary evidence as Exs.P1 to P71. PW3 produced certain documents namely two registers with respect to intimation to Police Station, Medico legal case maintained in Chinmaya Mission Hospital, entry pertaining to the appellant etc. at Exs.C1, CI (a), C2 and C2(a). Whereas, the first respondent did net choose to enter the witness box nor produce or got marked any documentary evidence.

6. After going through the material available on file, including the pleadings of the parties and after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also the Insurer and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by appellant, holding that, the appellant has utterly failed to substantiate his case that the injuries sustained by him is on account of the road traffic accident caused by the driver of Car bearing Registration No.KA-53/M-4995 on 18-07-2007 at about 8:15 A.M. on Old Madras Road, near Muthumariamma Temple, near Tin Factory. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed the appeal before this Court, seeking to set aside the judgment and award passed by Tribunal and award reasonable compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.

7. I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant.

8. It is the case of the appellant that, the Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding any compensation and dismissing the claim petition. It is contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and instead of coming to the conclusion that the Car bearing Registration No.KA- 53/M-4995 has caused the accident, has wrongly come to the conclusion that the said vehicle is not involved in the accident while the appellant was crossing the road. It is further contended that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW2, the appellant, who is the eye witness for the said accident and he has specifically stated that the vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The Tribunal further erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove that he was engaged in crossing old madras load near Tin factory and the driver of the Car drove the same negligently, causing accident to the appellant, resulting in injuries and disability to him. Further, it is also contended that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the injuries suffered by the appellant who suffered injury to radiollor nerve, neck and right shoulder, left upper and lower limbs and treated as inpatient at Chinmaya Mission Hospital and subsequent follow-up treatment at various Ayurvedic Massag and thereby suffered lot of pain and agony. The Tribunal further failed to appreciate the evidence of PW3, Doctor who treated the appellant and assessed the permanent disability at 20% to the whole body and thus erred in not awarding any compensation. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, holding that the appellant failed to establish actionable negligence against the offending vehicle, is liable to be set aside and award reasonable compensation for the injuries and disability suffered by appellant.

9. Learned counsel appearing for appellant vehemently submitted that, in fact, the compensation calculated by Tribunal at Rs. 1,34,300/- for the injuries and disability suffered by appellant in the road traffic accident,, is on the lower side and liable to be enhanced reasonably.

10.  Per contra, learned counsel appearing for first respondent/ Insurer, inter alia contended and substantiated the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, stating that the same is passed after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and after recording a specific finding of fact at paragraphs 14 and 15 of its judgment that the appellant has utterly failed to prove the occurrence of accident on the aforesaid time, date and place of accident. The said reasoning given by Tribunal is well founded, well reasoned and therefore, interference in the same is not called for.

11.  After hearing the learned counsel appearing for appellant, after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, and after due consideration of the entire material available on file, the only point that arise for my consideration in this appeal is, Whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the claim petition?"

12.  After critical evaluation of the entire material available on file, it can be seen that the Tribunal, after assessing the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and documentary evidence at Exs.Pl to P71, has rightly dismissed the claim petition, holding that the appellant has failed to establish that the alleged injuries sustained by appellant are on account of the road traffic accident.

13. After re-appreciation of the entire oral evidence of PWs1 and 2, it can be seen that, they have stated that after the accident, appellant has been shifted to Chinmaya Mission Hospital by the driver of the Car for treatment. In the written statement filed by the Insurer, it has denied the allegation regarding reason and mode of occurrence of the accident as alleged by the appellant. In the cross-examination PW1 submitted that he never witnessed the accident. In the cross-examination of PW2, appellant herein, he has stated that there was a delay of six months in filing complaint, as the respondent No.2/owner of the offending car and the driver of the vehicle under took to bear the medical and miscellaneous expenses and therefore, immediately his father did not file the complaint. PW2, appellant has stated that the reason for the delay in lodging the complaint is not disclosed before Police.

14. It is further significant note from the evidence of PW2, appellant herein that, earlier, he had stated that prior to accident, he saw the appearance of the Car at a distance of 100 feet and in the place of accident there are zebra marks, signal pole. Thereafter, he has stated that contents of the sketch regarding absence of zebra marks and signal pole are wrong and incorrect and denied the suggestion that in view of his negligence crossing of the road, the alleged accident took place and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Car. He further stated that, the Police never came to Chinmaya Mission Hospital when he was taking treatment. The contents of the documents pertaining to Crime No. 13/08 of K.R. Puram Traffic P.S. corroborates the oral evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 regarding date, time, place, reason, mode and consequence of the accident, involvement of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-53- M-4995 in the occurrence of the accident. The charge sheet shows that after investigation, Police have charge sheeted the driver of the Car bearing No.KA-53/M-4995 for having committed the offence punishable u/s 279, and 338 of IPC r/w. sec. 134 (a) and (b) r/w. sec. 187 of IMV Act.

15. Further, in the evidence of PW3, Dr. Murali Kumar.V of Chinmaya Mission Hospital, it is stated that on 18-07-2007 at 6:30 A.M.. Mr. Sunith Kumar.V, i.e. the appellant, aged about 17 years came to casualty with a history of R.T.A. and injuries. During cross- examination of PW5, he has produced some Registers pertaining to intimation sent to the Police regarding appearance of the patients with injuries to the at Exs.C1 and C2 and the relevant pages which are concerned to the appellant are marked at Exs.C1 (a) and C2(a). The oral evidence of PW3 and contents of the page marked at Ex. CI (a) show that, on 18-07-2007 at 6:30 A.M., the appellant along with Mr. Mohan went to Chinmaya Mission Hospital stating that on the same day, at about 5:45 A.M. in view of accident occurred involving the vehicles bearing Registration Nos.KA-03 4583 and KA-53-M-4995 on Old Madras Road, near NGEF, appellant suffered injuries. The oral evidence of PW3 and contents of the page marked at Exs.C2(a) reveal that on 18-07-2007 at about 8:30 A.M., the appellant went to Chinmaya Mission Hospital stating that on the same day at 8:30 A.M. in an accident that occurred on Old Madras Road hear Shankthi Temple, Mariyamma Temple, he has suffered injuries. In the cross-examination, PW3 stated that after five months in January 2008, when the appellant came to Chinmaya Mission Hospital and insisted, he has prepared and issued intimation marked at Ex.C2(a). The intimation slip marked at Ex. P. 4 is the copy of the page marked at Ex.C2(a). The F.I.R. and complaint reveal that on 07-01- 2008 at about 1:00 P.M. on the basis of the complaint given by PW1, the father of appellant, the K.R.Puram Police have registered a case in Crime No. 13/2008 against the driver of the Car bearing No.KA-53-M-4995 for having committed offences punishable under 

Sections 279, 337 of I.P.C. by causing injuries to the appellant by dashing the Car to the appellant on 18-07- 07 at about 8:15 A.M. on Old Madras Road, near Muthumariyamma Temple.

16.  Further, it can be seen that, neither the evidence of driver of the Car nor the independent eye witness or the evidence of Investigation Officer is available. PWs1 and 2 have not explained when as per Ex. CI (a), the appellant went to Chinmaya Mission Hospital at about 6:30 A M. on 18-07-2007 and for what reasons appellant was present on the same day at about 8:00 A.M. on Old Madras Road, near Om Shakthi Temple i.e., Muthumariyamma Temple and none of the parties have produced documents regarding steps taken by the Indiranagar Police on the basis of the intimation marked at Exs.C.1(a), C2(a) and Ex.P.4.

17.  Further, even though during cross- examination, PW2 has explained the reason for the delay caused in filing the complaint, appellant has not explained the discrepancies found at Exs.C1 (a), C2(a), oral evidence of the PW3 and his evidence regarding time of the occurrence of the accident, place of the occurrence of the accident, time of his appearance at Chinmaya Mission Hospital, identification number of the vehicles involved in the accident i.e., concerned to the injuries might have been suffered by him.

18. It can be seen further that, the evidence of PW3, Doctor to the effect that, after five months, i.e. in January 2008, when appellant came to and insisted he has prepared and issued the intimation marked at Ex.C2(a). It reveals from the said document that, PW3 and Chinmaya Mission Hospital authorities used to prepare and issue intimation addressed to the Police at the instance of the appellants and to the same, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not explained for what reasons the evidence of PW3 and contents of the Ex. CI (a) regarding time of the appearance of the appellant with injuries to Chinmaya Mission Hospital and place of the occurrence of the accident, vehicles concerned to the injuries might have been suffered by the appellant are to be disbelieved and ignored The deletion of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA 03/4583 in the intimation slip marked at Ex.C2(a) and Police records and variation in the time and place of occurrence of the accident, appearance of the appellant to the Hospital creates doubt in the genuineness and trust worthiness of the Police records and oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2.

19. Further, the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, contents of the Police records does not corroborate with the evidence of PW3, contents of the slip marked at Ex, CI (a) regarding place, time of the occurrence of the accident, vehicles concerned to the injuries might have been suffered by the appellant. In view of the absence of the evidence of independent eye witness and Investigation Officer, the evidence of PWsl and 2 and contents of Police records is rightly not believed by Tribunal. On the basis of oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2, intimation slip marked at Ex.C2(a) and Police records it can be inferred that PW3, Chinmaya Mission Hospital and Investigation Officer i.e., P.S.I, of K.R. Puram traffic Police station stood behind the appellant and they were hand in glove in the entire case.

20. Further, the contents of Ex, CI (a) and evidence of PW3 to the effect that on 18-07-2007 at 6:00 A.M., appellant came to Hospitai with injuries forces to disbelieve the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and contents of the documents pertaining to Crime No. 13/2008 regarding time, place of the occurrence of the accident, involvement of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-53/M-4995 in the occurrence of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, holding that the evidence placed by the appellant are not sufficient to presume that on 18-07- 2007 at 8:15 A.M. on Old Madras Road, near Tin Factory, Om Shakthi Temple, appellant was engaged in crossing the road and at that time a Car bearing Registration No.KA-53/M-4995 dashed against the appellant resulting in the injuries to the appellant. 

21. The discussion, reasoning and finding given by the Tribunal from paragraphs 7 to 14 are after critical evaluation of the entire material available on its file and the same being just, fair and proper, I do not find any justification or good ground to interfere in the well considered and well reasoned judgment and award passed by Tribunal. Hence, interference in the same is unwarranted.

22. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by appellant is liable to be dismissed as being devoid of merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed.