Karnataka High Court
Sri Govindaraju vs M D Jameel Ahmed on 9 December, 2021
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.7889 OF 2018(MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI GOVINDARAJU
S/O LATE MUTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O THUMBENAHALLI VILLAGE
KAILANCHA HOBLI
RAMANAGARA TALUK
& DISTRICT-562 159
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.RAJU S., ADV.)
AND
1. M D JAMEEL AHMED
S/O BABA JAN
R/AT MAHABOOB NAGAR
SHOLBAG,2ND CROSS
WARD NO.18
RAMANAGARA TOWN
TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 159.
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
2
COMPANY LTD.,
NO.1825/14C,1ST FLOOR
SRI COMPLEX,OLD B.M.ROAD
HANASUR,MYSORE DISTRICT-562 159
REPRESENTED BY ITS
BRANCH MANAGER.
3. SRI UMESH
S/O RAJANNA
R/AT NO.21,KOTHIPURA
NEAR ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE
RAMANAGARA TOWN-562 159
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
4. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, R.V.R.COMPLEX
OPP:LIC OFFICE
BEHIND KSRTC BUS STAND
IJOOR,RAMANAGARA TOWN-562 159.
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY TS
BRANCH MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ASHOK N NAYAK, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1, R3 & R4 IS D/W
V/O DATED:24.03.2021)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
06.04.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.34/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ADDITIONAL MACT, RAMANAGARA PARTLY ALLOWING
3
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
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 6.4.2018 passed by
the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Senior
Civil Judge, Ramanagara in MVC 34/2014.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 4.11.2013, the claimant was
proceeding in autorickshaw bearing registration
No.KA-02-B-2432 from Ramanagara Town towards
Hunasanahalli, at that time, motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-42-Q-3563 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.2
to 4 appeared through counsel and respondent No.2
and 4 filed written statements in which the averments
made in the petition were denied.
The respondent No.1 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.P9. On behalf of the respondents,
one witness was examined as RW-1 and 2 and got
exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R6. 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 7% 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 grievous injury. The claimant has
produced medical bills for Rs.6,791/-. 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. Considering the same, the
global compensation of Rs.20,000/- 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 he has not
examined the doctor regarding disability and injuries
suffered by him. There is no loss of income due to the
disability. He has produced medical bills only for
Rs.6,791/-. Considering the same, 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 accident has
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver.
As per wound certificate Ex.P-5, the claimant has
sustained simple injuries. He has not examined the
doctor regarding disability suffered by him. He has
produced medical bills for Rs.6,791/-. 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.20,000/- in
addition to compensation of Rs.20,000/- 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.40,000/-.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest at 7%
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
