(2009] 9 S.C.R. 942
1-
A
NORTH WEST KARNATAKA RD. TRANSPORT CORP.
v.
GOURABAI AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3171 of 2009)
B
MAY 1, 2009
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
~
-:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 166 - Injuries sustained
c 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.
.:..
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
D 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).
E
R.S. Hedge and P.P. Singh for the Appellants.
Mallikarjun S. Mycar and E.R. Sumathy for the
Responderit~.
>-
.,.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the
G 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
H
942
i
~
\
(
NORTH WEST KARNATAKA RD. TRANSPORT
CORP. v. GOURABAI [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
943
as well as before the High Court was that the deceased did A
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 B
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 c
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 D
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 E
stands set aside.
4. The appeal is accordingly, allowed.
B.B.B.
Appeal allowed.
Lex