The Branch Manager vs Mr Manjesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5192 Kant

                         1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                      BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

            MFA No.2244 OF 2016(MV)

BETWEEN:

THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
NO.20, 2ND FLOOR, 9TH MAIN
OPP: VICEROY HOTEL
JAYANAGAR 3RD BLOCK
BENGALURU
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
SUMANGALA COM,PELX
LAMINGTON ROAD
HUBLI-580 020.
                                      ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI.SRINIVASA K N., ADV.)

AND


1 . MR MANJESH
    S/O SRINIVASA,
    AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
    WORKING IN PROVISION STORES
    R/O KONEMANE VILALGE
    HIREGADDE POST
                        2



   MADUNDE HOBLI
   KOPPE TALUK
   CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

2 . MR.SATHEESH KUMAR G
    S/O GANESHAN
    AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
    R/AT NO.2, CHINNAPPAN STREET
    AGRAHARA, DHARMAPURI
    TAMILNADU STATE.

3 . VENKATESH.T
    FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
    AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
    R/AT NO.12, 4TH FLOOR
    RICHMOND TOWN
    BENGALURU-560025.
                                    ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.VINOD GOWDA, ADV. FOR R1:
R2 SERVED: NOTICE TO R3 IS D/W
V/O DATED: 25.10.2017)


     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.01.16
PASSED IN MVC NO.70/14 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST
ADDITIONAL    DISTRICT   JUDGE   AND   MACT,
CHIKKAMAGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION   FOR   COMPENSATION  AND   SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                  3



                                JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',

for short) has been filed by the Insurance Company

being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.01.2016

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Chikkamagaluru in MVC No.70/2014.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 15.11.2013 at about 06.30

P.M., the claimant was proceeding in the motorcycle

bearing registration No.KA-18/K-6998 belonging to

one Venkatesha Bhat as a pillion rider from B.Kanabur

to his residence at Konemane Village driven by the

said Venkatesha Bhat slowly, cautiously and by

observing all the traffic rules. While so proceeding

opposite to Ramachandra Acharya Kulume,

Kadlemakki, N.R.Pura Taluk, the rider of the

motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-01/EA-468 rode

the same in a rash and negligent manner with

excessive high speed and dashed to the motorcycle in

which the claimant was proceeding. As a result of

the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained

grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section

166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded

that he spent huge amount towards medical

expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded

that the accident occurred purely on account of the

rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by

its rider.

4. On service of notice, the respondent No.3

being the insurer has appeared through counsel and

filed written statement in which the averments made

in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the

petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law.

The driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid

driving licence as on the date of the accident. The

liability is subject to terms and conditions of the

policy. The age, avocation and income of the claimant

and the medical expenses are denied. It was further

pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by

the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for

dismissal of the petition.

The respondent Nos.1 and 2 not appear before

the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and were

placed ex-parte.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was

examined as PW-1 and another witness was examined

as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P.1

to Ex.P.17. On behalf of the respondents, neither

examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter

alia, held that the accident took place on account of

rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by

its rider, as a result of which, the claimant sustained

injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is

entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,34,100/- along with

interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the

Insurance Company to deposit the compensation

amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this

appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

6. The learned counsel for the Insurance

Company has contended that even though the

claimant claims that he has suffered head injury, he

has not examined the doctor to assess the disability

suffered by him. No Disability Certificate has been

produced. Under these circumstance, the Tribunal

without any evidence is not justified in granting

compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for 'loss of future

earning capacity'. Hence, he sought for allowing the

appeal filed by the Insurance Company by reducing

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for

the claimant has contended that the injuries suffered

by the claimant are head injuries. Even Ex.P.10-

Discharge Summary shows that the C.T.scanning of

the brain revealed that the claimant sustained left

frontal contusion with edema with pneumucephalus.

Due to the head injury, he was unable to do his

regular work. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in

granting the compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for 'loss

of future earning capacity'.

He further contended that due to the accident,

the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He has

suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the

same, the compensation granted by the Tribunal

under the heads of 'loss of amenities' and 'pain and

sufferings' are on the lower side and the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the other

heads are just and reasonable. Hence, he sought for

dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the judgment and award.

9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has

sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred

due to rash and negligent riding of the offending

vehicle by its rider.

As per wound certificate, the claimant has

sustained tenderness present all over the head,

tenderness and discolouration present on around the

left eye and bleeding from nose. The claimant has not

examined the doctor to prove the disability suffered

by him. He has suffered head injuries. Ex.P.10-

Discharge Summary shows that the C.T.scanning of

the brain revealed that the claimant sustained left

frontal contusion with edema with pneumucephalus

and condition on discharge was that patient was

conscious, disoriented and he could move all the four

limbs. Considering the evidence of the claimant and

the injuries suffered by him, the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal for 'pain and suffering' and

'loss of amenities' is on lower side. But the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal for 'loss of

future earning capacity' is on higher side. Considering

the head injuries suffered by the claimant, I am of the

opinion that the compensation of Rs.2,34,100/-

awarded by the Tribunal is hereby reduced to

Rs.2,00,000/-.

10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in

part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation

of Rs.2,00,000/-.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- along with

interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim

petition till the date of realization, within a period of

six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this

judgment.

The amount in deposit before this Court shall be

transmitted to the Tribunal.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HA/-