Karnataka High Court
Sri Vijay vs Rajesh 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.10778 OF 2013(MV)
BETWEEN:
Sri.Vijay
S/o Ramaiah,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at near Kollapuradamma Temple,
Pension Mohala, Main road,
Hassan Town-573201. ... Appellant
(By Sri. G.V.Narasimha Murthy, Advocate)
AND:
1. Rajesh,
S/o Papanna,
Aged Major,
R/at No.690, Dr. Rajkumarnagar,
Main Road, Hassan-573301.
2. The Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional Office, 1st Floor,
S.S.Complex, Subash Chowk,
Hassan-573 201. ... Respondents
(By Sri.M.Arun Ponnappa, Advocate for R2:
Notice to R1 is dispensed with
v/o dated:30.06.2016 )
2
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated: 16.05.2013
passed in MVC No.2005/2012 on the file of the Presiding
Officer, Fast Track Court-2, MACT, Hassan, partly allowing
the claim petition for compensation and seeking
enhancement of compensation.
This MFA, coming on for admission, this day, this
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 16.05.2013 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan in MVC
No.2005/2012.
2. The learned counsel for the claimant has
raised the following contentions:
Firstly, claimant has suffered grievous injuries,
he suffered permanent disability and has undergone
surgery. He was unable to examine the doctor who
has treated him. The Tribunal on the ground that he
has not examined the doctor, has granted a meager
compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
Secondly, a Division Bench of this Court in the
case of 'IQBALAHAMED vs. VICE CHAIRMAN, M/S.
PATEL INTEGRATED LOGISTICS LTD. AND
ANOTHER' ILR 2017 KAR 3045 has held that in
cases where the claimants are not able to examine the
doctor, who has issued disability certificate as a
witness, due to their poverty, illiteracy, ignorance
etc., a pro-active role needs to be adopted by the
Tribunal and the presence of the doctor is to be
ensured by the Presiding Officers by invoking the
powers under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Under these circumstances, he sought for remanding
the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration
with a liberty to the claimant to produce additional
document to prove that he suffered disability due to
the injuries sustained in the accident.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
insurance company contended that even though the
claimant has claimed that he suffered disability due to
the injuries sustained in the accident he has not
examined the doctor and produced the disability
certificate. Therefore, the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, he sought
for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Perused the judgment and award.
5. It is not in dispute that the claimant
sustained injuries in the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its
driver. Even though the claimant claims that he
suffered disability, he has not examined the doctor
who treated him. This Court in the case of IQBAL
AHMED (supra) has held as hereinbelow:
"In large number of claim petitions,
the claimants are unable to produce either
the treating doctor, or the doctor who has
issued the disability certificate, as a
witness. The claimants may be prevented
from producing such witness either because
of their poverty, ignorance, illiteracy, or
because such witness, being doctors, are
invariably too busy to appear before the
Tribunals. But in these circumstances,
which are beyond the control of the
claimant, invariably, it is the claimant who
suffers for no fault of his or her.
Considering the fact that the treating
doctor, and the doctor who has issued the
disability certificate are material witnesses
in a claim petition, it is essential that their
presence be ensured by the Presiding
Officers of the Tribunal by invoking the
power under Section 165 of the Evidence
Act."
6. In view of the above circumstances and in
the interest of justice, to give one more opportunity to
the claimant, the following order is passed:
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award
dated 16.05.2013 passed by the Tribunal in respect of
quantum of compensation is set aside, in respect of
liability, it is confirmed. The matter is remanded back
to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Tribunal is
directed to summon the treated doctor or any other
doctor and examine him as Court witness in respect of
disability and injury suffered by the claimant.
Thereafter, the Tribunal shall decide the matter in
accordance with law, only in respect of compensation
is concerned. Liberty is reserved to the parties to
examine any other witness and to produce the
documents.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Cm/-
