- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 1 May 2009
- Bench
- Arijit Pasayat, Asok Kumar Ganguly
- Case no.
- Civil Appeal No. 3171 of 2009
- Result
- Appeal allowed.
Headnote
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 166 - Injuries sustained by deceased were not on account of any vehicular accident - Hence, award by MACT not sustainable - High Court erred in upholding the award passed by MACT. .:..
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Heard.
¶2Leave granted.
¶3Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. Challenge in the said appeal was to an award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. VII, Bijapur (in short MACT). An award of Rs.2,59,400/- was made. The main contention of the appellant before the MACT as well as before the High Court was that the deceased did not sustain any injury in any accident involving the. bus of the corporation. Reference was made to the evidence of the doctor, who had admitted the deceased to the hospital, that the deceased had suffered head injury due to fall from the height of 8 to 10 feet of his own house. Though this was specifically stated in the written statement, the MACT and the High court brushed aside the same stating that there was indirect admission about the deceased having sustained injury in vehicular accident. The effect of the evidence of the doctor and exhibit R-1 does not appear to have been looked into by the i MACT and the High Court. MACT did not place reliance on the
document R-1 on the ground that the brother of the injured stated that he did not know what was written in the document and his signature was taken on one age. This conclusion overlooks from the fact that a doctor will not take a signature on a piece of paper mentioning something which is not correct. Exhibit R-1 establishes beyond the shadow of doubt that the injuries sustained were not on account of any vehicular accident. That being so, the MACT and the High Court were not justified in making any award. The order of the MACT and High Court stands set aside.
¶4The appeal is accordingly, allowed.
Case details
Arising from
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3171 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 27.2.2007 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No. 2098 of 2005 (MV).
Appearances
R.S. Hedge and P.P. Singh for the Appellants.
Mallikarjun S. Mycar and E.R. Sumathy for the Responderit~.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.