Mohankumar T vs Reliance Gen
2021 Latest Caselaw 5659 Kant

                       1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                    BEFORE

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

           MFA No.789 OF 2016(MV)

BETWEEN:

MOHANKUMAR T
S/O THANGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
FLAT NO.412, VARS ALL SEASONS
4TH CROSS
KONENA AGRAHARA
BANGALORE-560017.
                                   ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI.SHANTHARAJ., ADV.)

AND

1 . RELIANCE GEN INS CO LTD.,
    EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, NO:28,
    CENTENARY BUILDING,M.G ROAD
    BANGALORE-560001.

2 . MR RAVICHANDRAN P
    NO:B-303, AISWARYA SERENITY
    NEAR MARATHAHALLI RAILWAY
    BRIDGE, MARATHAHALLI
                            2



    VARTHUR ROAD
    BANGALORE-37.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.B PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R1:
NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W V/O DATED: 03.02.2017)

     THIS MFA IS      FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST       THE      JUDGMENT        AND       AWARD
DATED:30.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.4139/2013
ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES    JUDGE,    COURT      OF   SMALL    CAUSES    &
MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.


     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE 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 30.7.2015 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in

MVC 4139/2013.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 22.2.2013, the claimant was

a pedestrian standing on the extreme left on the

service road of Munnekolalu waiting for bus, at that

time, car bearing registration No.KL-11-AE-8871 being

driven by its driver 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 respondents

appeared through counsel and filed written statement

in which the averments made in the petition were

denied.

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.P16. 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.37,000/- 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

raised the following contentions:

Firstly, the claimant claims that he was earning

Rs.2,69,980/- per month by working as Software

Engineer at IBM. As per wound certificate, he has

sustained posterior dislocation of right elbow with

displaced fracture of right radius, displaced intra-

articular fracture right distal radius with fracture ulnar

styloid (wrist). He has produced 63 medical bills at

Ex.P-10. He has spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards

'medical expenses'. But the Tribunal has not granted

any compensation under the head of 'medical

expenses'.

Secondly, the claimant has sustained grievous

injuries. In his evidence, he has stated that the

treated doctor from Manipal Hospital has opined that

the claimant has to undergo one more surgery for

right radial head replacement surgery for which he

has to spent Rs.275,000/-. But the Tribunal has not

awarded any compensation under the head of 'future

medical expenses'.

Thirdly, the claimant was treated as inpatient for

a period of 8 days. He has not attended the office for

two months. But the Tribunal has not granted any

compensation under the head of 'loss of income

during laid-up period'.

Fourthly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as

inpatient for a period of 8 days. Even after discharge

from the hospital, he was not in a position to

discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain

during treatment. But the Tribunal has failed to

granted any compensation under the head of 'loss of

amenities'. Further, the compensation granted by the

Tribunal under the heads of 'pain and sufferings' and

incidental expenses are on the lower side. Hence, he

sought for allowing the appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for

the Insurance Company has raised following counter

contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he

has spent Rs.200,000/- towards 'medical expenses',

an amount of Rs.175,459/- has been reimbursed by

TTK Healthcare, which is evident from Ex.P-10 and

claimant is entitled only for remaining amount.

Secondly, the claimant has not examined the

doctor regarding disability suffered by him. He has not

proved that he has suffered loss of income due to the

disability. Moreover, he has not produced any

documents to prove that he has not drawn any salary

during the laid up period. Therefore, the Tribunal has

rightly not awarded any compensation under the head

of 'loss of income during laid-up period'.

Thirdly, considering the oral and documentary

evidence and considering the age and avocation of the

claimant, the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable

compensation and it does not call for interference.

Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the records.

9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has

sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of the offending

vehicle by its driver.

As per wound certificate, the claimant has

sustained posterior dislocation of right elbow with

displaced fracture of right radius, displaced intra-

articular fracture right distal radius with fracture ulnar

styloid (wrist).

In respect of medical bills, claimant claims that

he has spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards 'medical

expenses' and has produced 63 medical bills at Ex.P-

10. As per Ex.P-10, it is evident that an amount of

Rs.175,459/- has been reimbursed by TTK Healthcare.

In Ex.P-10, it is mentioned that patient's share as

Rs.20,840/- and Rs.12,651/- which has been paid the

claimant. Hence, the claimant is entitled for the said

amount. Further, the claimant has stated in his

evidence that the treated doctor from Manipal

Hospital has opined that the claimant has to undergo

one more surgery for right radial head

replacement surgery for which he has to spent

Rs.275,000/-. Therefore, considering the evidence of

the claimant and considering the nature of injuries

and Ex.P-10, I am inclined to award a sum of

Rs.75,000/- under the head of 'medical and future

medical expenses'.

The claimant claims that he was earning

Rs.2,69,980/- per month by working as Software

Engineer at IBM. He claims that he has suffered loss

of income for a period of two months due to injuries.

He has not examined the doctor regarding disability

suffered by him. Further, he has not examined the

employer to prove that he has availed leave and he

has not drawn any salary for the leave period.

Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not awarded any

compensation under the head of 'loss of income

during laid-up period'.

The claimant was treated as inpatient for more

than 8 days in the hospital and thereafter, has

received further treatment. Hence, I am inclined to

enhance the compensation awarded under the head of

'conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges'

from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.25,000/-.

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered

grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He has

suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to

suffer with the disability stated by the doctor

throughout his life. Considering the same, I am

inclined to award compensation of Rs.40,000/- under

the head of 'loss of amenities'. Further, I am inclined

to enhance the compensation under the head of 'pain

and sufferings' from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.

10. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

following compensation:

                               As awarded        As awarded
  Compensation under             by the          by this Court
    different Heads             Tribunal             (Rs.)
                                  (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings                 25,000               50,000




Medical and future medical                0         75,000
expenses
Food, nourishment,                 12,000           25,000
conveyance and attendant
charges
Loss of amenities                       0           40,000
              Total                37,000         190,000

11. 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.190,000/-.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the compensation amount 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 Tribunal is directed to release the

compensation amount in favour of the claimant after

due verification.

Sd/-

JUDGE DM