Regional Manger vs Pradeep Kumar C S
2021 Latest Caselaw 5297 Kant

                               1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                         BEFORE

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

                MFA No.2323 OF 2016(MV)
                          c/w
                MFA No.3947 OF 2016(MV)

IN MFA 2323/2016
BETWEEN:

Regional Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Regional Office,
Subharam Complex,
144, M.G. Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
Policy issued by its
Branch office at
Div. No.10, Flat No.101-106,
N-1, BMTC House ,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001.                       ... Appellant

(By Sri. A.N.Krishna Swamy, Advocate)

AND:

1.     Pradeep Kumar C.S.,
       S/o Sanikaran C.U.
       Now aged about 57 years,
       R/at 9 , "Swapnam"
       Sanjeeva Reddy Street,
       Subbainaplya,
       Bangalore-560033.
                             2




2.   Ramachandra B.G.,
     S/o Govindappa, Major,
     R/at # 52, Byatarayanapura,
     Mysore Road, Bangalore-26,
     Permanent R/o Beediganahalli Village,
     Channarayapatna Post,
     Devanahalli Taluk,
     Bangalore Rural District-562110. ... Respondents

(By Sri. Shripad V Shastry, Advocate for R1:
R2 served and unrepresented)

      This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:6.02.2016 passed
in MVC No.480/2014 on the file of the Member, MACT,
20th Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru, awarding a
compensation of Rs.6,55,000/- with interest @ 85 p.a.
from the date of petition till realization of the amount
Except for the amount of future medical expenses of
Rs.75,000/-.

IN MFA 3947/2016
BETWEEN:

Sri.Pradeep Kumar C.S.,
S/o Sanikaran C.U.
Now aged about 55 years,
R/at 09 , "Swapnam"
Sanjeeva Reddy Street,
Subbainaplya,
Bangalore-33.                              ...Appellant

(By Sri. Shripad V Shastry, Advocate)
                             3




AND

1.    National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
      Subharam Complex,
      No.144, M.G. Road,
      Bangalore-560 001.
      Policy issued by its
      Branch office at
      Div. No.10, Flat No.101-106,
      N-1, BMTC House ,
      Connaught Place,
      New Delhi-110001.
      By its Manager.

2.    Sri. Ramachandra B.G.,
      S/o Govindappa, Major,
      R/at No.52, Byatarayanapura,
      Mysore road, Bangalore-26,
      Permanently R/at
      Beediganahalli Village,
      Channarayapatna Post,
      Devanahalli Taluk,
      Bangalore Rural District.      ...Respondents

(By Sri.A.N.Krishnaswamy, Advocate for R1:
Notice to R2 is d/w V/O dated: 02.03.2021)

      This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:6.02.2016 passed
in MVC No.480/2014 on the file of the Member, MACT,
20th Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru, partly
allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking
enhancement of compensation.

      These MFAs, coming on for hearing, this day, this
Court, delivered the following:
                           4



                   JUDGMENT

MFA No.2323/2016 is filed by the Insurance

Company and MFA No.3947/2016 is filed by the

claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles

Act, being aggrieved by the judgment and award

dated 06.02.2016 passed by the MACT, Bangalore

(SCCH-22) in MVC No.480/2014. Since the challenge

is to the same judgment, both the appeals are clubbed

together, heard and common judgment is being

passed.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals

briefly stated are that on 15.12.2013 at about 6.30

a.m., the claimant was waiting in the signal on BB

road from GKVK side on his motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-03/HL-652. At that time, car

bearing registration No.KA-41/A-6294 being driven by

its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent

manner, dashed to the vehicle of 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 No.1

appeared through counsel and filed written statement

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 petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye

of law. It was further pleaded that the accident was

due to the rash and negligent riding of the vehicle by

the claimant himself. 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. 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 No.2 did not appear before the

Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was 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 Dr.Krishan Prasad was

examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents

namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. On behalf of the

respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and

got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R2. 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.6,55,000/- along with

interest at the rate of 8% p.a. and directed the

Insurance Company to deposit the compensation

amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, these

appeals have been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the Insurance

Company has raised the following contentions:

Firstly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are

minor in nature. Considering the injuries suffered by

the claimant and considering the evidence of the

doctor, the overall compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is on the higher side.

Secondly, in view of the Division Bench decision

of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND

OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA

5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of

on 24.8.2020), the interest granted by the Tribunal

at the rate of 9% p.a. is on the higher side and the

same has to be reduced to 6% p.a. Hence, he sought

for allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance

Company and dismissal of the appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for

the claimant has contended that due to the accident

the claimant has suffered grievous injuries, he has

suffered 23% whole body disability. He has suffered

lot of pain during treatment and he has to suffer the

disability and unhappiness throughout his life. The

overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on

the lower side. Hence, he sought for allowing the

appeal filed by the claimant and dismissal of the

appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

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

contused abrasion over frontal region, lisfranc fracture

dislocation 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th metatarsal joints,

fracture dislocation of left 1st metatarrophalyngeal

joint, fracture base of 2nd metatarsal bone, displaced

fracture midshaft of left tibia, fracture subluxation of

right hip joint and right foot fracture of 1st, 2nd

metatarsal and 1st and 4th middle phalanx. He has

suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to

suffer the disability and unhappiness throughout his

life. Considering the evidence of the parties and

considering the injuries suffered by the claimant, I am

of the opinion that the overall compensation awarded

by the Tribunal has to be reduced from Rs.6,55,000/-

to Rs.5,50,000/-.

In view of the judgment of a Division Bench of

this Court in the case of JOYEETA BOSE (supra), the

interest awarded by the Tribunal @ 8% p.a. is scalled

down to 6% p.a.

Accordingly, appeals are disposed of.

The amount in deposit is ordered to be

transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Cm/-