Karnataka High Court
Kumari Parimala B R vs Sri. Lohith S on 8 December, 2021
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.7803 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN:
KUMARI PARIMALA B R
D/O RAJASHEKHAR N R
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
STUDENT
RESIDING AT JOTHINAGAR
OPPOSITE CHAMUNDESHWARI TEMPLE
AMARAPURA ROAD
GURUKULA EXTENSION
SIRA, TUMKUR DIST.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SHIVAKUMARAPPA T.C., ADV. FOR
SRI.SIDDAPPA B M., ADV.)
AND
1. SRI. LOHITH S
S/O BHOVI SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
DRIVER OF BUS
R/O NO.180
HUCHAVANAHALLI, BASAVAPURA
DAVANAGERE TALUK& DIST-577502.
2
2. VITTALARAO B K
S/O KHANDOJIRAO
R/O NO.56, A BLOCK
DEVARAJ URS EXTENSION
DAVANAGERE-577502.
3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.
DIVISIONAL OFFICE
A M ARCADE
CHIGATERI HOSPITAL ROAD
VIDYARTHI BHAVAN
DAVANAGERE-577502.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.V. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ADV. FOR R3:
NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS D/W
V/O DATED: 08.12.2021)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
07.07.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.250/2017, ON THE
FILE OF THE II-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC., AND VI-MACT, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
3
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 7.7.2018 passed by
the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & VI MACT, Davanagere
in MVC 250/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 24.9.2016, the claimant
along with others were proceeding in car bearing
registration No.KA-02-ME-0743 on 24.9.2016 to go to
Hubli, near Angodu Village, NH-4, chitradurga, at that
time, bus bearing registration No.KA-17-B-8904 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.3
appeared through counsel and filed written statement
in which the averments made in the petition were
denied. The respondent Nos.1 and 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 got exhibited documents
namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. On behalf of the respondents,
no witness was examined and got exhibited
documents namely Ex.R1. 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.34,250/- 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, this appeal has been
filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant has
contended that as per wound certificate, the claimant
has sustained abrasions on the forehead and hair line.
She has produced medical bills for Rs.20,246/-. Even
after discharge from the hospital, she was not in a
position to discharge her regular work. She has
suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the
same, the global compensation of Rs.34,250/- granted
by the Tribunal 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
claimant has sustained simple injuries and she has not
examined the doctor regarding disability and injuries
suffered by her. There is no loss of income due to the
disability. She has produced medical bills only for
Rs.20,246/-. Considering the same, the Tribunal has
granted just and reasonable compensation and it does
not call for interference. Further, the interest awarded
by the Tribunal at 8% p.a. on the compensation
amount is on the higher side. Hence, he sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that the accident has
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver.
As per wound certificate Ex.P-4, the claimant has
sustained abrasions on the forehead and hair line. She
has not examined the doctor regarding disability
suffered by her. She has produced medical bills for
Rs.20,246/-. Therefore, considering the evidence of
the claimant and nature of injuries mentioned in the
wound certificate and considering the age and
avocation of the claimant, I am inclined to award
compensation of Rs.15,750/- in addition to
compensation of Rs.34,250/- awarded by the Tribunal.
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.50,000/-.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest 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 enhanced compensation amount shall carry
interest at 6% p.a.
The Tribunal is directed to release the
compensation amount in favour of the claimant after
due verification.
In view of the order passed by this Court, the
claimant is not entitled for interest for the delayed
period of 321 days in filing the appeal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
