Karnataka High Court

Sri Yoganna H P @ Yogesh vs Sri Manjunatha on 15 January, 2021

Author: H T Prasad

                               1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                         BEFORE

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

                MFA No.7998 OF 2015(MV)

BETWEEN:

Sri. Yoganna [email protected] Yogesh,
S/o Puttanaika,
Aged 29 years,
R/at: Hosaramanahalli Village,
Bilikere Hobli, Hunsur Taluk,
Mysore District Pin-571 105.
                                          ... Appellant

(By Sri. B.S.Nagaraj., Advocate)

AND:

1.     Sri. Manjunatha,
       S/o Chikkaveeraiah,
       Aged about 50 years,
       Gurumatada Street,
       Saligrama, K.R.Nagar Taluk,
       Mysore District.

2.     Sri. Deva Kumar,
       S/o Rathna Rajaiah,
       Aged about 52 years,
       S.B.M.Road,Saligrama,
       K.R.Nagar Taluk,
       Mysore District.

3.     Shriram General Insurance
                              2



     Company Ltd.,
     Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
     E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Stature, Jaipur,
     Rajasthan-302 022.
                                            ... Respondents

(By Sri.Gopalappa, Advocate for R1:
Sri.B.Pradeep, Advocate for R3:
R2 served and unrepresented)

       This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:09.07.2015 passed
in MVC No.1386/2011 on the file of the VIII Additional
District Judge, sitting at Hunsur, partly allowing the claim
petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.

      This MFA, coming on for hearing, through video
conference, 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 09.07.2015 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore District

sitting at Hunsur in MVC No.1386/2011.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 15.06.2011 at about 7.15

a.m., the claimant was walking on the left side of the

road. At that time, the driver of tempo tracks bearing

registration No.KA-12/A-1709 drove the vehicle 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 was a second

year LLB. student and also an agriculturist earning

Rs.5,000/- 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

to 3 filed separate written statements in which the

averments made in the petition were denied. The age,

avocation and income of the claimant and the medical

expenses are denied. It was pleaded by respondent

No.1 that the driver of the offending vehicle was

holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the

date of the accident.

It was pleaded by respondent No.2 that the

accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the respondent No.1 but due to the

negligence on the part of the claimant and that the

accident occurred not due to the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

It was pleaded by respondent No.3 that

respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective

driving licence as on the date of the accident and

thereby the respondent No.2 committed breach of the

terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, respondent

No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation. 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 Dr.Girish Chandra R. as PW-2

and got exhibited 76 documents namely Ex.P1 to

Ex.76. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the

offending vehicle was examined as RW-1 and got

marked 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 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.1,05,736/- along with

interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Being not satisfied with

the quantum of compensation, claimant has filed an

appeal before this Court in MFA No.3070/2013.

During pendency of the appeal the claimant filed IA

Nos. 1, 2 and 4 of 2013 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC

for production of additional documents. This Court by

order dated 03.07.2014 remanded the matter back to

the Tribunal for consideration of additional documents.

On remand, the Tribunal by judgment and award

dated 09.07.2015 after considering the additional

documents, awarded a total compensation of

Rs.2,35,000/-. Being not satisfied with the quantum

of compensation, claimant has filed this appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the claimant raised

the following contentions:

Firstly, due to the injuries suffered in the

accident the claimant could not continue his studies.

He incurred expenses due to disability. But the

Tribunal has not granted any compensation for 'loss of

future income due to disability' and 'conveyance and

attendant charges'.

Secondly, the claimant has suffered lot of pain

during treatment and he has to suffer the disability

throughout his life. Hence, the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal under the heads 'pain and suffering'

and 'loss of amenities' are on the lower side. Hence,

he sought for allowing the appeal.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

insurance company has contended that this is a

second round of litigation. Earlier the Tribunal granted

compensation of Rs.1,05,736/-. Being aggrieved by

the same, claimant filed an appeal before this Court in

MFA No.3070/2013 and he also filed applications for

additional documents to show that he spent

Rs.1,21,289/- for medical expenses. After remand,

the Tribunal considering the additional documents

awarded compensation of Rs.2,35,000/-. Hence, this

appeal is not maintainable. Therefore, he sought for

dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Perused the judgment and award and original records.

9. It is not in dispute that the claimant

suffered injuries in the accident that occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by

its driver.

Due to the accident the claimant suffered the

following injuries:

(1) Structured wound over right fronto -

parietal region 2" in length.

      (2)     Ear lobe tear, bleeding +.

      (3)     Abrasion over right elbow on the posterior

              aspect.

      (4)     Abrasion over right leg, head injury.

      (5)     Tenderness    over   left    hip   -    impacted

              fracture neck of left femur.




     (6)   Fracture of neck of femur bone.

The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence of the

doctor has rightly assessed the whole body disability

at 15%. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the

evidence of the parties and material on record has

awarded total compensation of Rs.1,05,736/-. Being

aggrieved the claimant has filed an appeal before this

Court in MFA No.3070/2013. During the pedency of

the appeal claimant filed applications seeking for

production of additional documents. This Court by

order dated 03.07.2014 remanded the matter back to

the Tribunal only for consideration of the additional

documents. The Tribunal after considering the

additional evidence awarded total compensation of

Rs.2,35,000/-.