- (1.)This is an unfortunate case of the MACT being guided by the Insurance Company to dismiss the appeal without appreciation of relevant evidence marshalled in the enquiry, in a summary proceeding, in which the degree of proof is one of preponderance of probability and not strict proof of evidence.
(2.)One Anjinappa was said to have suffered grievous injury in an accident that occurred on 5.5.2010 at 9.30 p.m. involving a motorcycle on the road opposite UCO Bank in Tumkur, in front of SIT College, whence the injured was taken in an autorickshaw to Rajalakshmi Nursing Home for first-aid and thereafter to Siddharth Medical college, Tumkur and from there to NIMHANS, Bangalore, where he succumbed to injuries at 9 a.m. on 6.5.2010. Claimant before the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge & MACT, Tumkur, for short 'MACT' was the widow of the deceased. The 1st respondent before the MACT was the owner of the Hero-Honda motorcycle bearing certificate of registration No. KA-06-Y-8638, while 2nd respondent was the insurer.
(3.)Before the MACT, respondents were represented by learned counsel who filed statement of objections denying the assertions in the claim petition although 1st respondent- owner made reference to the policy of insurance issued by the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent in the statement of objections admitted such policy of insurance to be valid and in existence as on the date and time of accident. 2nd respondent in its statement of objections specifically pointed out to the report of the Chief Medical Officer, NIMHANS recording that the accident occurred due to head on collusion between two-wheelers, while the compliant lodged gave a different version that the deceased was a pedestrian, an afterthought only to grab compensation by implicating the insured vehicle. In addition, it was contended that the rider of the motorcycle did not hold a valid and effective driving licence as on the date and time of accident.