Mohamed Zakriya vs Kantharaj
2021 Latest Caselaw 520 Kant

                        1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                     BEFORE

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

            MFA No.7235 OF 2013(MV)

BETWEEN:

MOHAMED ZAKRIYA
S/O ABDUL KUDDUS @ ABDUL KUDDUS SAB,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/O BEHIND KARNATAKA PETROL BUNK
DAVANAGERE ROAD
CHITRADURGA TOWN-577 501.

                                      ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. R.SHASHIDHARA, ADV. )

AND

1.    KANTHARAJ
      S/O CHANDRAPPA
      AGE MAJOR
      R/O ECHALANAGENAHALLI
      CHIKKAPURA POST
      CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501.

2.    THE BRANCH MANAGER
      NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
      BRANCH OFFICE,
      LAKSHMI BAZAR
                            2



     CHITRADURGA-577 501.
                                      ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

    THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED: 6.02.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.337/2012 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN)
ADDITIONAL    MACT-4,  CHITRADURGA,    PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCMENT 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 06.02.2013 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 31.05.2012 at about 5.00

p.m., the claimant was proceeding on motorcycle

bearing Reg.No.KA-16/H-4122, as pillion rider, when

the said motorcycle came near Azad Mill cross on

B.d.road, Chitradurga, at that time, motorcycle

bearing Reg.No.KA-16/S-6044 being driven by its

rider at a high speed and in a rash and negligent

manner, dashed against 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 on the ground 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 rider.

4. On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1

and 2 appeared through their respective counsel and

filed common written statement in which the

averments made in the petition were denied. The

age, occupation, income and injuries sustained by the

claimant as alleged and period of treatment taken by

the claimant and amount spent by the claimant for

medical treatment are denied. It was further pleaded

that the accident was not due to rash and negligent

riding of the vehicle by its rider, but accident occurred

due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle

bearing Reg.No.KA-16/H-4122 by its rider. It was

further pleaded that issuance of policy, if any, subject

to terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, they

sought for dismissal of the petition.

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 15 documents

namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. On behalf of the

respondents, none of the witness were examined, but

they got exhibited 1 document namely Ex.R1. 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 50% of compensation of Rs.25,000/- along

with future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed

the Insurance Company to deposit 50% of

compensation amount along with future interest.

Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the claimant has

contended that due to the accident, the claimant has

suffered grievous injuries, he was inpatient for a

period of 15 days, and he has suffered lot of pain

during the treatment, and he has spent Rs.2,400/-

towards medical expenses and overall compensation

awarded by the Tribunal of Rs.25,000/- is 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 suffered by the claimant are minor in nature

and he has not examined the treated doctor and he

has not spent Rs.2,400/- towards medical expenses.

taking into consideration of the same, the global

compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal

is just and reasonable. Hence, he sought for dismissal

of the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused 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 bearing Reg.No.KA.16/S-6044 by its

rider.

Due to the accident the claimant has suffered

the following injuries.

1. Comminuted fracture of lower end of left radius and

2. Fracture of lower end of left ulna.

He was inpatient for a period of 15 days. taking into

consideration the evidence of the parties and Ex.P4-

wound certificate and Exs.P6 to 9, medical bills, I am

of the opinion that the global compensation of

Rs.50,000/- can be awarded without any interest.

Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for 50% of

enhanced compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal

is modified to the extent that the Insurance Company

is liable to pay 50% of the enhanced compensation.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Mkm