Sushma @ Sushma vs Naveen Kumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 18 Kant

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 18 Kant
Judgement Date : 4 January, 2021

Karnataka High Court

Sushma @ Sushma vs Naveen Kumar on 4 January, 2021

Author: Nataraj Rangaswamy

                          1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                     BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.231 OF 2017(MV)


BETWEEN:

SUSHMA @ SUSHMA
D/O MANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
RESIDING AT BHAGIVALU VILLAGE
GANDASI HOBLI
ARSIKERE TALUK

PRESENT ADDRESS:
C/O KAMALAMMA
BESIDE TAHSILDAR OFFICE
B.M.ROAD
HASSAN.
                                      ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR Y.N, ADVOCATE)

AND:

  1. NAVEEN KUMAR
     S/O THIMMEGOWDA
     MAJOR
     R/AT GUNDEGOWDANAKOPPALU
     HASSAN TALUK
     HASSAN-573201.

  2. THE MANAGER NEW INDIA INSURANCE
     COMPANY LIMITED
                           2




     CHANDAN COMPLEX
     HARSHAMAHAL ROAD
     HASSAN DIVISION
     HASSAN-573201.


                                     ... RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;
RESPONDENT NO.1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED]

      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC.NO.772/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL
MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                   JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking

enhancement of the compensation awarded by the

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT, Hassan

(henceforth referred to as 'Tribunal') in

MVC No.772/2014.

2. Though, this appeal is listed for admission,

the same is taken up for final disposal with the consent

of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The parties are referred to as they were

arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. The impugned judgment and award

discloses that on 13.12.2014 at about 5.40 p.m. when

the claimant was walking by the side of the Bagevalu

Road in front of N.B.H.S. School Hostel, Gandasi Hand

Post, a Honda Activa Scooter bearing Reg.No.KA-13-V-

4684 (henceforth referred to as the "offending vehicle")

ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner

dashed against the claimant. As a result, the claimant

suffered injuries on her left leg, face and other injuries

on the other parts of the body. She was shifted to

Gandasi Government Hospital, where she was

administered first aid and then shifted to S.S.M.

Hospital, Hassan for further treatment, where she

availed treatment for a period of 15 days. The claimant

contended that she spent more than a sum of Rs.1 lakh

for her treatment. Further, she claimed that due to the

accidental injuries, she was unable to concentrate on

her studies and was dependent on others for all her day

to day activities. She thus filed a claim petition under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming

compensation of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the owner

and the insurer of the offending vehicle.

5. The insurer of the offending vehicle

contested the claim petition and contended that the

rider of the offending vehicle was not arrayed as a party.

It also contended that a complaint was lodged after

three days from the date of the accident and therefore it

contended that the claimant must have fallen

somewhere else and had lodged a complaint later only

to make a claim for compensation. It claimed that the

rider of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid

license and thus contended that it was not liable to pay

the compensation. With these rival contentions, the

claim petition was set down for trial.

6. The claimant's father was examined as PW1

and the doctor who treated the claimant was examined

as PW2 and they marked documents as Exs.P1 to 11.

The insurer and the owner did not lead any evidence

and did not mark any documents.

7. The Tribunal noticed that the accident was

due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending

vehicle by its rider. It rubbished the contention of the

insurer that it was not liable to pay the compensation

on the ground that the complaint was lodged after three

days. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is

concerned, the Tribunal noticed that the claimant had

suffered fracture of medial and lateral of the left ankle

and that a sum of Rs.69,641/- was spent on medical

expenses. It is also noticed the evidence of PW.2 that

the claimant had to undergo a surgery of removal of

implant at a cost of Rs.20,000/- and having regard to

the loss of income suffered by the parents of the

claimant, the Tribunal awarded the following

compensation:

              Heads under which                   Amount
            compensation awarded                  (in Rs.)
  Pain and sufferings                                 25,000
  Medical expenses                                    70,000
  Future medical expenses                             20,000
  Loss of income                                       1,000
  Loss of amenities                                    5,000
  For food and nourishment                             5,000
                    Total                          1,26,000

8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid quantum of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant

has filed this appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has

contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded

adequate compensation having regard to the nature of

the injuries sustained by the claimant and the

consequent disability.

10. Learned counsel for the insurer however

contended that the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any

interference by this Court.