Karnataka High Court
Sri L Palani vs Sri Prakatheesh R on 13 January, 2021
Author: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.8351 OF 2013(MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI. L. PALANI
S/O LAXMANA GOWNDAR
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT NO.37, 3RD CROSS,
THIPPANNA LAYOUT
KARIYANNANA PALYA
LINGARAJAPURA, BENGALURU.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKARA SWAMY, ADV. FOR
SRI. T.PARAMESHWARAPPA, ADV.)
AND
1. SRI. PRAKATHEESH R.,
S/O RAMAKRISHNAN N.,
NO.15, 2ND FLOOR
6TH MAIN, NARAYANAPPA BLOCK
R.T.NAGARA, BENGALURU-560 032.
2. MANAGER
IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
NO.8, KSCMF BUILDING
2
3RD FLOOR, 3RD BLOCK
CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BENGALURU-560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R2:
R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:01.02.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.7928/2011
ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, BANGALORE, 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 01.02.2013 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 20.09.2011 at about 9.30
a.m., the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle
bearing Reg.No.KA-04/EZ-1700 on Jayamahal Park
road from north to south near Priyadarshini junction,
Jayamahal road, at that time, car bearing registration
No.KA-12/N-5501 being driven by its driver at a high
speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed
against the motorcycle of 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 was working as
cutting in charge at DJ Apparels Garments, and was
drawing salary of Rs.16,800/- per month. 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 Nos.1
and 2 appeared through their respective counsel and
filed their separate written statement in which the
averments made in the petition were denied. It was
pleaded by the respondent No.1 that the accident was
not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver and it was occurred
solely on account of rash and negligent riding by the
claimant himself. The age, avocation and income of
the claimant are denied. Hence, he sought for
dismissal of the petition.
It was pleaded by the respondent No.2 that
issuance of policy, if any, is subject to terms and
conditions of the policy in respect of car bearing
Reg.No.KA-12/N-5501. It was further pleaded that
the policy is in the name of one Devaiah and claimant
has filed petition against Prakateesh. The owner of the
vehicle has transferred the vehicle to one Prakateesh
the present owner and the same was not intimated to
respondent No.2. On this ground Insurance Company
is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.1. It was
further pleaded that the accident was not occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle by its driver and it was occurred solely on
account of rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle
by the claimant himself. The age, avocation and
income of the claimant and injuries sustained by the
claimant amount incurred towards medical expenses
are denied. The compensation claimed by the
claimant is excessive and exorbitant. Hence, he
sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Claims Tribunal framed issues and thereafter
recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was
examined as PW-1 and Dr.P.N.Prakash as PW-2 and
got exhibited 12 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12.
On behalf of the respondents, neither examined any
witness nor marked any documents. 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.54,700/- along with interest
at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed Insurance
Company to deposit the compensation amount along
with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been
filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant has
raised the following contentions.
Firstly, at the time of accident claimant was aged
about 56 years, was working as Cutting in charge at
DJ Apparels Garments and was drawing salary of
Rs.16,800/- per month. He has produced Exs.P7 and
8 letter issued by the said garments.
Secondly, claimant has suffered grievous injuries
in the said accident, he has examined the doctor, who
has assessed disability at 12.54%. He has suffered lot
of pain during treatment. He has not attended work
for a period of two months. The compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'pain and
sufferings', 'loss of amenities' and 'loss of income
during the laid up period' are on lower side. Hence, he
sought for allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company has raised the following
contentions.
Firstly, even though claimant has examined the
doctor, who has assessed disability at 12.54%, but he
has continued his job. There is no loss of income due
to disability.
Secondly, claimant was inpatient for only one
day. Taking into consideration the evidence of the
doctor and nature of injuries suffered by the claimant,
the Tribunal has rightly granted just and reasonable
compensation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal and original records.
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has
suffered injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on
20.09.2011 due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver. Due to the accident
claimant has suffered the following injuries.
1. Fracture type II & III metatarsal right
finger,
2. Undisplaced fracture of right medial
mallelous ankle upper third fibula and
other injuries.
He has examined Dr.P.N.Prakash as PW.2. In is
testimony, he has deposed that claimant has suffered
disability of 12.54%. Since it is not in dispute that
there is no loss of income due to disability, the
Tribunal has rightly not granted any compensation
under the head of 'loss of income due to disability'.
Since he has suffered disability of 12.54%, and he has
suffered lot of pain during treatment, taking into
consideration the evidence of the doctor and wound
certificate-Ex.P6, I am of the opinion that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head
of 'loss of amenities' has to be enhanced from
Rs.20,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and under the head of
'pain and sufferings' from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/-.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under other heads is just and reasonable.
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 20,000 40,000
Medical expenses 7,700 7,700
Loss of earning during 7,000 7,000
laid up period
Loss of amenities 20,000 30,000
Total 54,700 84,700
The claimant is entitled to a total compensation
of Rs.84,700/-.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of this judgment.
The Tribunal is directed to disburse the entire
compensation amount to claimant after due
verification.
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the
Claims Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Mkm
