Ramaiah B T vs Jagadeesh P
2021 Latest Caselaw 5217 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.7519 OF 2019(MV)

BETWEEN:

Ramaiah B.T.,
S/o Thimmasiddaiah,
Now aged about 62 years,
R/at Residing at Budhihal,
Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.              ... Appellant

(By Sri. Rangegowda N.R., Advocate)

AND:

1.     Jagadeesh P.,
       S/o Puttarudraiah,
       Aged Major,
       R/at Kodagadala,
       Puravara Hobli,
       Madhugiri Taluk,
       Tumkur District.

2.     HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company,
       No.2, 2nd Floor,
       Shankaranarayana Building
       M.G.Road, Bangalore-560 001.     ... Respondents

(By Sri. B.pradeep, Advocate for R2:
Notice to R1 is D/w
V/o dated: 01.12.2021)
                              2




      This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:01.06.2019 passed
in MVC No.6456/2017 on the file of the 9th Additional
Small Causes Judge, & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small
Causes and Member, MACT-7, Bangalore, partly allowing
the claim petition for compensation and seeking
enhancement of compensation.

      This MFA, coming on for orders, this day, this Court,
delivered the following:

                     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 claimant being

aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.06.2019 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore

(SCCH-7) in MVC No.6456/2017.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 24.07.2017 at about 3.30

p.m., the claimant was standing on the left side of

the road on Doddaballapura - Nelamangala road near

Basavanahalli Cross, Nelamangala Rural District. At

that time, the rider of the motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-64/K-6543 rode the same at a high

speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed to

the claimant. 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 driving of the offending vehicle by

its driver.

4. On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1

and 2 appeared through counsel and filed separate

written statements in which the averments made in

the petition were denied. The age, avocation and

income of the claimant and the medical expenses are

denied. It was pleaded that the quantum of

compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant.

Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition.

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 got exhibited documents

namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. On behalf of the

respondents, two witnesses were examined as RW-1

and RW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1

to Ex.R8. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned

judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place

on account of rash and negligent driving of the

offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which,

the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further

held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of

Rs.20,000/- 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.

6. The learned counsel for the claimant has

contended that due to the accident the claimant has

suffered grievous injuries, he was inpatient for a

period of 3 days. He has spent Rs.5,439/- towards

medical expenses. The overall compensation awarded

by the Tribunal at Rs.20,000/- is on the lower side.

Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for

the Insurance Company has contended that the

injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature,

he was inpatient for only 3 days. He has not

examined the doctor. Considering the injuries

suffered by the claimant the overall compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Perused the judgment and award and the original

records.

9. It is not in dispute that the claimant

suffered injuries in the accident occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its

driver.

Due to the accident the claimant has suffered

fracture of 4th metacarpal with multiple wound over

ring and middle finger, abrasions over face forehead,

nose abrasion over right knee. He was inpatient for a

period of 10 days and he has spent Rs.5,439/- for

medical expenses. Considering the injures suffered by

the claimant and considering the age and avocation, I

am of the opinion that in addition to the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.30,000/- has to

be awarded.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

Rs.50,000/- 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.

To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the

Claims Tribunal is modified.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

The Tribunal is directed to release the entire

compensation amount to the claimant after due

verification.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Cm/-