Contradictory medical records justified dismissal of the motor accident compensation claim.

The claimant alleged that on 21 November 2012, while riding her motorcycle near Ejipura Main Road, Bengaluru, she was struck by a motorcycle owned by the second respondent and insured by the first respondent.

She claimed injuries and loss of earning capacity, and sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Tribunal dismissed the petition, finding the accident and negligence unproved, in part because of an 11-day delay in the police complaint and concerns about the medical evidence.

The claimant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Act.

Whether the Tribunal’s dismissal of the claim petition required interference, including by awarding suitable compensation.

Whether the claimant proved that she sustained injuries in the accident and that it occurred due to the offending motorcyclist’s rash and negligent riding.

The claim was brought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the appeal under Section 173(1) of that Act.

The Court assessed whether the claimant’s evidence established the accident and negligence, considering the pleadings, testimony, and documentary record.

No precedent or separate legal test was cited in the judgment.

The Court considered the claimant’s account alongside the medical records and testimony.

The wound certificate recorded an examination shortly after the alleged accident, but described the injuries as simple; the MRI report identified an ACL tear two days later, while the hospital admission relied upon by the claimant occurred about 80 days after the accident.

The Court found that the timing and contents of the records, together with the testimony concerning diagnosis and recovery, did not adequately resolve the discrepancies that had led the Tribunal to doubt the claim.

It therefore found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s assessment.