Mohan @ Mohan Kumar vs Byregowda
2021 Latest Caselaw 1433 Kant

                         1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                      BEFORE

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

            MFA No.7730 OF 2014(MV)


BETWEEN:

MOHAN @ MOHAN KUMAR
S/O MANJEGOWDA ,
AGED 38 YEARS
R/AT KUNDOORU VILLAGE
DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK 573 201.
                                     ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI.R.G.HALESHA, ADV.)

AND

1.    BYREGOWDA
      S/O SHIVANANJEGOWDA
      AGED 35 YEARS.

2.    SMT VEENA
      W/O BYREGOWDA
      AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
      BOTH ARE R/AT KUNDOORU VILLAGE
      DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI
      CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK 573 201.
                            2



                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED:28.01.2015:
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED )

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:06.08.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.42/2011 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT,
CHANNARAYAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION   FOR   COMENSATION    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 6.8.2014 passed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 23.9.2010, the claimant was

proceeding to Gandasy for selling coconut in the mini

goods lorry bearing No.KA-13-6558 near

Chagachagere, Channarayapatna-Arasikere road, the

driver of the said vehicle drove the same at a high

speed and in a rash and negligent manner, lost control

and dashed against the road side electric pole. 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

appeared through counsel and filed written statement

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 Dr.G.Siddalingamurthy was

examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents

namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On behalf of the

respondents, neither any witness was examined nor

any document was produced. 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.2,00,000/- along with interest at

the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the owner of the

offending vehicle 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 Ex.P-4, the

claimant has sustained fracture or right femur,

abrasion over left forehead, abrasion over left

shoulder, injury to knee and other bodily injuries.

PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the

claimant has suffered functional disability of 40% to

lower limb. He was treated as inpatient for a period of

12 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 overall compensation granted by the

Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he sought for

allowing the appeal.

      7.     The   respondent      No.2   is   served    and

unrepresented.

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 fracture or right femur, abrasion over left

forehead, abrasion over left shoulder, injury to knee

and other bodily injuries. PW-2, the doctor has stated

in his evidence that the claimant has suffered

functional disability of 40% to lower limb. He was

treated as inpatient for a period of 12 days.

Considering the evidence of the parties, nature

of injuries and disability stated by the doctor, the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all the

heads are just and reasonable.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DM