Sri. Nanjundappa D.R. vs Smt. Prapulla
2021 Latest Caselaw 1236 Kant

                         1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                      BEFORE

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

            MFA No.9407 OF 2013(MV)

BETWEEN:

SRI. NANJUNDAPPA D R
S/O RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT DODDASHETTY KERE
MAYASANDRA HOBLI
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMAKUR DISTRICT.

NOW RESIDING AT
C/O KUSAPPA GOWDA
SHEKHAMALE HOUSE
ARIYADKA VILLAGE
PUTTUR TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT.
                                    ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI.PRASANNA K., ADV. FOR
SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADV.)

AND

1.    SMT. PRAPULLA
      W/O DINESH BABU
      AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
                            2



     R/AT PALIKE HOUSE
     KEMMINJE VILLAGE
     PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.

2.   SRI. RAMA GENERAL INSURANCE
     COMPANY LIMITED
     BRANCH OFFICE
     MAHESHWARA ARCADE
     NEAR STATE BANK OF MYSORE
     PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.,
     REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
                               ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. D.S. SRIDHAR, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED:17.02.2014)

    THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:09.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1119/2010
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
& ACJM, MAMEBER, MACT, PUTTUR,D.K. PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

    THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, 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 9.10.2013 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 3.9.2009, the claimant was

proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration

No.KA-10-X-3590 as pillion rider from perlampady

towards Madavu, near Sumavana, Siddamoole-

Madavu, public road of Kothige Village, at that time, a

Goods Tempo 407 bearing registration No.KA-21-5171

came from opposite direction 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

filed written statement in which the averments made

in the petition were 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

rider. The driver of the offending vehicle did not have

valid driving licence as on the date of the accident.

The age, avocation and income of the claimant and

the medical expenses are denied. 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.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.P118 and Ex.C-1 to 3. 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.1,82,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6%

p.a. and directed the respondent Nos.1 and 2 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. As per disability

certificate Ex.P-114, the claimant has suffered

disability of 51.6% to left lower limb. Due to the

accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries.

He was treated as inpatient for a period of 30 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. Considering the

same, the Tribunal has not granted any compensation

under the head of 'loss of amenities'. Further,

compensation granted by the Tribunal under the

heads of 'pain and sufferings' and other heads 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 contended that claimant

has not examined the doctor regarding the disability

suffered by him. He has continued his services.

Therefore, there is no loss and the Tribunal

considering the same has not awarded any

compensation under the head of 'loss of future

income'. The Tribunal considering that the claimant

was on medical leave for a period of 5½ months ahs

granted just and reasonable compensation under the

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

overall compensation granted by the Tribunal is just

and reasonable compensation and it does not call for

interference. Hence, he sought 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, the claimant has

sustained contusion and deformity of right thigh,

lacerated wound bleeding on the anterior aspect and

x-ray shows fracture of right femur and fracture of

right knee joint. As per disability certificate Ex.P-114,

the claimant has suffered limb body disability at

51.6%. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 30

days. 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 a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the

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

enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from

Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.

The claimant has not examined the doctor

regarding the disability suffered by him. He has

continued his services. Therefore, there is no loss of

income and the Tribunal considering the same has not

awarded any compensation under the head of 'loss of

future income'.

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal

under other heads is just and reasonable.

10. Thus, the claimant is entitled to

compensation of Rs.50,000/- in addition to

compensation of Rs.1,82,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the compensation amount along with interest at 6%

p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the

the date of realization, within a period of four weeks

from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment

excluding interest for the compensation awarded by

the Tribunal under the head of 'future medical

expenses'.

To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the

Claims Tribunal is modified.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DM