Mr. Prashantha @ Prasantha ... vs Mr. Yogesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 273 Kant

                          1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                     BEFORE

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

            MFA No.7894 OF 2013(MV)

BETWEEN:

MR. PRASHANTHA @ PRASANTHA TALAVAR
S/O BASAVANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT HULAGADDIPOORNA VILLAGE
HANGAL TALUK
HAVERI DISTRICT.
                                ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI.BABU.M., ADV. )

AND

1.    MR. YOGESH
      S/O SHIVMADAIAH
      MAJOR IN AGE
      R/AT NO.478/1, B.H.ROAD
      JAYANAGARA
      NELAMANGALA TOWN
      BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.

2.    THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
      REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
      VP-IV, 1ST CROSS
      POLICE STATION ROAD
                            2



     PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
     BANGALORE-560 058.
                                      ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. C.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADV. R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

    THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED: 22.06.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.2837/2012
ON THE FILE OF THE 14TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND
MACT COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION 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 22.6.2013 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 22.3.2012, the claimant was

proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration

No.KA-02-EL-6820 as a pillion rider near

Adakamaranahalli Bus stop, Dasanapura Hobli, at that

time, the rider of the motorcycle rode the same at

high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, lost

control and dashed to the pedestrian and caused

accident. 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 on the ground that he was working as

packaging helper and was earning Rs.5,500/- p.m. It

was pleaded that he also 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 motorcycle by the

rider. The involvement of the vehicle is disputed. The

rider of the motorcycle had no valid driving licence.

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

chose to file written statement.

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 Mr.Marishantha Veeraswamy

as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1

to Ex.P17. 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 riding of the

offending vehicle by its rider, as a result of which, the

claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held

that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of

Rs.85,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% 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

submitted that the claimant has sustained head injury

with left supra orbital ridge fracture with underlying

EDH, SDH and penumocephalus and it is grievous in

nature. The claimant was aged 22 years at the time of

the accident. He was working as packaging helper and

earning Rs.5,500/- per month. Due to the accident,

the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was

treated as inpatient for a period of 3 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

compensation granted by the Tribunal under the

heads of 'loss of amenities', '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 the

injuries sustained by the claimant are minor in nature.

He has not examined the doctor regarding disability

suffered by him. Therefore, considering the oral and

documentary evidence, the Tribunal has granted 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.

The claimant claims that he was working as

packaging helper and was earning Rs.5,500/- p.m.

The claimant has not produced any evidence with

regard to his income. Considering the evidence of the

claimant, the income has to be taken at Rs.5,500/-

p.m.

As per wound certificate, the claimant has

sustained head injury with left supra orbital ridge

fracture with underlying EDH, SDH and

penumocephalus and it is grievous in nature. The

claimant has not examined the doctor to assess

disability suffered by him. Hence, he is not entitled for

compensation under the head 'loss of future income'.

However, 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. He was treated as inpatient for

more than 3 days in the hospital and thereafter, has

received further treatment. Considering the same, I

am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by

the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings'

from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.40,000/-, under the head of

'loss of amenities' from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.40,000/-

and further a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under

the head of 'food, nourishment and attendant

charges'.

As per wound certificate, the nature of injuries

suggest that the claimant must have been under rest

and treatment for a period of 4 months and therefore,

a sum of Rs.22,000/- (Rs.5,500x4 months) is awarded

under the head of 'loss of income during laid-up

period' as against Rs.10,000/-.

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal

under other heads remains unaltered.

10. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

following compensation:

As awarded As awarded Compensation under by the by this different Heads Tribunal Court (Rs.) (Rs.) Pain and sufferings 25,000 40,000 Medical and incidental 40,000 40,000 expenses Food, nourishment, 0 10,000 conveyance and attendant charges Loss of income during 10,000 22,000 laid up period Loss of amenities 10,000 40,000 Total 85,000 152,000

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation

of Rs.1,52,000/-.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the compensation amount along with interest at 6%

p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of

receipt of copy of this judgment .

To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the

Claims Tribunal is modified.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DM