Karnataka High Court denies higher compensation to accident victim over inconsistency in statements

Bengaluru: Mere filing of a charge sheet against the rider of the offending motorcycle is not sufficient to accept the claimant’s version of the accident and award compensation, the Karnataka High Court has said in a recent judgement. The court said this while dismissing the appeal filed by the claimant seeking higher compensation after finding inconsistencies in his statements regarding the accident.

According to the claimant, Raghavendra of Thirthahalli taluk in Shivamogga district, the accident had occurred on September 15, 2013, in front of Sahyadri Narayana Hrudayalaya Hospital of Arakare Village in Shivamogga. The complaint, filed on December 10, 2013, by claimant’s father Shyamu shettigar stated that Raghavendra was riding pillion on his own motorcycle, which was being ridden by his brother-in-law Annappa when another motorcycle hit them from behind.

Raghavendra filed a claim petition stating that he suffered permanent disability to the extent of 28% to the whole body. In September 2019, tribunal at Shivamogga awarded Rs 2.03 lakh compensation, to be paid jointly by the owner of the offending motorcycle and the insurance company. Raghavendra appealed against the verdict seeking higher compensation while the insurer challenged the order disputing the involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident.

Justice Umesh M Adiga noted that the claimant’s statements during the cross-examination created doubt on his credibility. Though he had given the history of injuries both at Sahyadri Narayana Hrudayalaya in Shivamogga and at Wenlock Hospital in Mangaluru, the records from Wenlock Hospital do not indicate that the accident occurred due to the involvement of the offending motorcycle, the court said.

“The medical records show that the claimant informed the medical officer that he skidded and fell from the motorcycle, which appears to be the true account of the incident, as reflected in the Wenlock Hospital records. It seems that the claimant fabricated the story of the accident solely to claim compensation,” Justice Adiga said.

The court further said, “The filing of a charge sheet by the police alone is not a valid reason to accept the contention of the claimant or the police when the contentions of the claimant is doubtful. It is true that in normal circumstances, the Tribunal may accept the charge sheet as prima facie proof of the accident. But in this case, there is sufficient material to disbelieve the allegations of the charge sheet. The Tribunal has not properly appreciated the said evidence and decided the case.”

The court allowed the appeal filed by the insurance company, rejected Raghavendra’s appeal, and ordered that any amount deposited by the insurer under the tribunal’s order should be refunded.