North West Karnataka Rd.Transport Corp vs Gourabai & Ors
- SCC(2009) 15 SCC 165
- Neutral2009 INSC 661
- SCR[2009] 9 SCR 942
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
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