Karnataka High Court
Gopal @ Rajagopal vs Suresha H C on 5 January, 2021
Author: S.Sujatha And M.I.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
M.F.A.No.3042/2019 (MV)
BETWEEN :
GOPAL @ RAJAGOPAL
S/O BOREGOWDA,
AGED 34 YEARS,
R/AT CHIKKAMALALI VILLAGE,
BETTADAPURA HOBLI,
PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SYED ABDUL SABOOR, ADV.)
AND :
1. SURESHA H.C.,
S/O H.A.CHANNABASAPPA
AGED 48 YEARS, R/AT 227,
FANCY STATIONARY MERCHANT
S.J.ROAD, HUNSUR TOWN
MYSURU DISTRICT-571102.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REP. BY ITS MANAGER
KRISHNAMURTHYPURAM BRANCH
MYSURU-570009. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI Y.K.SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADV. FOR R-2; R-1 SERVED.)
-2-
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
29.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC No.327/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
JUDGE, ADDITIONAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MACT,
MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
award dated 29.10.2018 passed in MVC No.327/2016
on the file of the Addl. Judge, Small Causes & MACT at
Mysuru [Tribunal for short].
2. The claimant instituted the petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for
short) claiming compensation for the injuries sustained
by him in the road traffic accident contending that he
met with the road traffic accident on 10.11.2015 at 1.30
p.m. while proceeding on his motor bike bearing Reg.
No.KA-45-U-8616. It was alleged that the actionable
negligence of the driver of the car bearing Reg.No.KA-
01-M-1428 was the cause for the accident. Due to the
said impact, the claimant sustained multiple injuries
and he was shifted to Brindavan Hospital, Mysore,
where he took treatment as an in patient for a period of
10 days. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered
permanent disability. It was contended that the
claimant has incurred huge medical expenses.
3. It was averred that the claimant was aged
about 30 years at the time of the accident and was
working as a mason earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per
month and was maintaining the entire family. Due to
the accidental injuries, the claimant is not able to carry
out his avocation as earlier. The claimant has suffered
mentally, physically as well as financially and has lost
his earnings.
4. On these facts and grounds, the claimant
sought for compensation.
5. After service of notice, the respondents
appeared through their respective counsel and filed
their written statement denying the petition averments.
6. The respondent No.1 has set up a defence
that the claimant has driven the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner on the wrong side and dashed to the
Maruthi omni car. It was alleged that the claimant was
in a drunken state and was not in a position to control
the speed of the vehicle. It was contended that the
offending vehicle was covered with an insurance policy
which was in force on the date of the accident. Hence,
liability, if any, has to be satisfied by the insurer.
7. The insurer filed written statement denying
the petition averments in toto. The primary defence set
up was that no specific endorsement authorizing the
driver to drive the specific type of vehicle was found in
the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle
as on the date of the accident.
8. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were
framed and answered as per the reasons recorded in the
impugned judgment allowing the petition in part
awarding total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- globally
along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition
till its realization fastening the liability on respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
9. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded, the claimant has preferred the
present appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant
submitted that the nature of injuries sustained by the
claimant being grievous, the Tribunal ought to have
awarded just and proper compensation, but the
compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded globally is
meager and the same requires to be enhanced
substantially.
11. Learned counsel for the insurer submitted
that there is no scope for further enhancement of the
compensation in view of the determination of
compensation made by the Tribunal being just and
proper. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
12. We have carefully considered the rival
submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and perused the original records.
13. It is apparent that the insurer has failed to
establish that the claimant was under the influence of
the alcohol at the time of accident. On the other hand,
the police records would point out the negligent act of
driving by the driver of the offending vehicle.
14. The material evidence on record would reveal
that the claimant took treatment as an in patient at
Brindavan Hospital, Mysuru. But no doctor was
examined to assess the percentage of disability. In the
absence of any disability certificate produced by the
claimant, coupled with the non examination of the
doctor, the Tribunal considering the gravity of injuries
sustained by the claimant, awarded global
compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- which includes the
compensation towards pain and suffering, medical
expenses and loss of income.
15. On re-appreciation of documentary and
ocular evidence, we are of the considered view that in
the absence of the disability certificate produced by the
claimant and the doctor not being examined to assess
the disability, this Court has to proceed having regard
to the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant.
Considering the nature of injures suffered by the
claimant as per the medical records, we deem it
appropriate to award a total sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with
interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its
realization.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, the total
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and
enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/- as against Rs.1,50,000/-
with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its
realization.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is modified and enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two lakhs only) globally as against
Rs.1,50,000/- which shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim
petition till its realization.
iii) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch
as liability and disbursement remains intact.
iv) The insurance company shall deposit the amount
determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within
90 days from the date of receipt of the certified
copy of the judgment and order.
v) The modified compensation amount shall be
disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal.
vi) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Dvr:
