Karnataka High Court
N Sandeep vs Nagappa 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.592 OF 2014(MV)
BETWEEN:
N.Sandeep,
S/o Sri. Narasimiah,
Aged about 20 years,
R/at No.233, 5th main,
Bogadi Railway Layout,
Mysore-570 001.
... Appellant
(By Sri. Narayana Swamy H., Advocate for
Sri. R.B.Sangamesh, Adv.)
AND:
1. Nagappa,
S/o Sri. Kasi Padiyar,
Aged about 46 years,
Door No.328,
Marigudi Temple Road,
Manchegowdana Koppalu,
Mysore-570 001.
2. Commissioner,
Mysore Development Authority,
JLB Road,
Mysore-570 01.
3. KGID, Insurance Department,
2
Motor Branch,
Bangalore-01.
... Respondents
(By Sri.B.R.Prasanna, Advocate for R2:
Smt. H.R.Anitha, HCGP. For R3:
Notice to R1 is dispensed with)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated: 22.09.2012
passed in MVC No.295/2012 on the file of the Presiding
Officer, Fast Track Court-V, Additional MACT, Mysore,
partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and
seeking enhancement of compensation.
This MFA, coming on for orders, 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 22.09.2012 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore in MVC
No.295/2012.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 17.01.2011, the claimant
was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-02/EB-5859 on Bogadi Road from
Saraswathipuram Railway level crossing towards
Government Press. At that time, a jeep bearing
registration No.KA-09/M-5871 being driven by its
driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent
manner, dashed to the vehicle 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 aged about
18 years and was a student, he was good at sports
and studies. Due to injuries sustained in the accident
he could not participate in any sports activates. 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. The age, avocation and
income of the claimant and the medical expenses are
denied. It was pleaded that the accident was due to
the rash and negligent riding of the vehicle by the
claimant himself. It was further pleaded that the
respondent No.1 had a valid and effective driving
licence at the time of the accident and the vehicle was
insured with respondent No.3. 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.J.S.Hegde as PW-2 and got
exhibited 15 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. On
behalf of the respondents, neither any witness was
examined nor got exhibited 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.50,000/- 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 has
contended that at the time of the accident claimant
was aged about 18 years and he was a student. He
has very good academic prospects. Due to the
injuries, he suffered lot of pain and he was unable to
attend the school. He has examined the doctor, who
assessed 12% permanent disability. The overall
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower
side. Hence, he sought for enhancement of
compensation.
7. Per contra, learned Government Pleader
appearing for the insurance company has contended
that the claimant has not produced any document to
show that he was studying and even though the
doctor has assessed the disability at 12%, there is no
loss due to disability. The Tribunal after considering
the evidence of the parties has rightly held that there
is no evidence in respect of loss of academics. Taking
into consideration the age of the claimant, the overall
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Perused the judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant suffered
injuries in the road traffic accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by
its driver.
Due to the accident the claimant has suffered
the following injuries:
(1) Fracture of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th metatarsal
(2) Fracture dislocation of navicular bone
(3) Fracture of lower end of radius and
displacement.
The claimant has examined the doctor as PW2.
In his testimony he has deposed that the claimant
suffered 12% permanent disability, but the claimant
has not produced any document to show that there is
loss of academics. Taking into consideration the
evidence of the doctor and age of the claimant, I am
of the opinion that the overall compensation granted
by the Tribunal at Rs.50,000/- has to be enhanced to
Rs.75,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the entire compensation amount along with
interest at 6% per annum (excluding the interest for
the delayed period of 393 days) 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.
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the
Claims Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Cm/-
