The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a motor accident compensation appeal after finding material inconsistencies in the claimant’s version of the accident and observing that the evidence indicated an apparent attempt to falsely portray him as a pillion rider to secure compensation from the insurer. Justice Geetha K.B. also directed the Inspector General of Police, Western Range, Mangaluru, to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and conduct a fresh investigation into the matter.
The claimant had sought ₹15 lakh in compensation for injuries allegedly sustained in a September 2010 accident on the Ankola-Kumta road. His case was that he was travelling as a pillion rider on a Honda Activa ridden by respondent No.3, when the vehicle met with an accident due to rash and negligent riding. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kumta, however, dismissed the claim after finding that the claimant had failed to establish that he was the pillion rider.
Before the High Court, the insurer relied on the original complaint lodged shortly after the accident. The complaint stated that the claimant himself was riding the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The Court also noted that the claimant admitted he did not possess a valid driving licence, whereas respondent No.3 had a licence.
The Court found several inconsistencies in the subsequent evidence produced to support the claimant’s version. In particular, a witness claimed that he learnt that the claimant had been travelling as a pillion rider after meeting him at Vivekananda Hospital on October 15, 2010. However, hospital records showed that the claimant had already been discharged on October 4, 2010. The Court also found contradictions regarding the relationship and familiarity between the witnesses and the claimant and respondent No.3.
The Court further questioned the conduct of the alleged rider, noting that he claimed to have left the injured claimant by the roadside and gone to his village to arrange for the vehicle to be brought back. His appearance in the proceedings only about a month later was also considered in assessing the credibility of the version advanced by the claimant.
Rejecting the argument that the police charge-sheet established the claimant’s case, the High Court reiterated that a charge-sheet is not conclusive proof of the facts stated in it and that the initial burden remained on the claimant to establish his case.
Finding apparent collusion among the claimant, respondent No.1, respondent No.3 and the complainant, the High Court concluded that the circumstances indicated an attempt to obtain compensation from the insurer on a false factual foundation. The Court while dismissing the appeal, imposed costs of ₹10,000 on the claimant and directed that the amount be deposited with the Advocates’ Library Fund, Karnataka High Court, Dharwad, within one month. The Court simultaneously directed the IG Police, Western Range, Mangaluru, to constitute an SIT and submit a fresh investigation report within three months.
