Miss Lucy
← All judgments

North West Karnataka Rd.Transport Corp vs Gourabai & Ors

Supreme Court1 May 2009Asok Kumar Ganguly · Arijit Pasayat

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Evidence of the medical practitioner who treated the deceased, corroborated by documentary evidence (Exhibit R-1), establishing that the injuries resulted from a fall at the deceased's own house rather than from any vehicular accident, is sufficient to rebut the presumption or inference of causation between the motor accident and the injuries, and therefore no award of compensation can be sustained where the claimant fails to establish that the death or injury was caused by the vehicular accident in question.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3171 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.15079 of 2007)

NORTH WEST KARNATAKA RD. TRANSPORT CORP. Appellant(s)

Versus

GOURABAI & ORS. Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Heard.

Leave granted.

Challenge 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

...2/-

-2-

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 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

page. 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

...3/-

-3-

the High Court were not justified in making any award. The order of the MACT

and High Court stands set aside.

The appeal is accordingly, allowed.

......................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

.....................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, May 01, 2009

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free