Smt Fameeda vs United India Insurance Co Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 2153 Kant

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

            DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

                  M.F.A.NO.8423/2012 (MV)

BETWEEN:

SMT. FAMEEDA
W/O SRI BABU,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC:BEAUTY PARLOUR BUSINESS,
R/O NO.61/7, ALLALASANDRA,
NARAYANAPPA LAYOUT,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU.
                                            ... APPELLANT
           (BY SRI SURESH M. LATHUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.     UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       19-19/1, SOUTH END ROAD,
       BASAVANAGUDI,
       BENGALURU-04
2.     MR. MUNISWAMAPPA
       KOIRA VILLAGE,
       KUNDANA HOBLI,
       DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
       BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-10
                                            ... RESPONDENTS
      (BY SRI Y.P.VENKATAPATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
 VIDE ORDER DATED 27.07.2015, NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED
                         WITH)
                                 2



     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.03.2012
PASSED IN MVC.NO.3228/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE 7TH
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER
MACT-3, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH
'VIDEO CONFERENCE' THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                  JUDGMENT

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent

of learned counsel for both the parties, the appeal is taken up for

final disposal.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award

passed in M.V.C.No.3228/2007 dated 15.03.2012 on the file of

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, Court of Small

Causes (SCCH-3) questioning the quantum of compensation.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 26.09.2006

at about 2.15 p.m., the petitioner was proceeding on the Bajaj

scooter bearing No.KA-05-K-7319 as pillion rider, near

Sondekoppa circle on NH-4 road. At that time, lorry bearing

No.KA-13-5011 came in high speed in rash and negligent

manner and dashed against the scooter. Due to the impact, the

petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries.

Immediately, she was shifted to Harsha Hospital, Sondekoppa,

Nelamangala, Bangalore, wherein she was treated as inpatient

from 26.09.2006 to 01.10.2006. It is her case that, she has

spent huge amount towards medicine, treatment and

conveyance and suffered permanent disability due to accidental

injuries.

3. In pursuance to the claim petition, notices were

ordered to the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.2-owner

of the vehicle did not appear before the Court and hence, he is

placed exparte. Respondent No.1-Insurance Company appeared

through its counsel and filed written statement admitting the

policy issued in respect of the offending vehicle and its validity

as on the date of the accident and denied all the averments

made in the claim petition with regard to the accident, injuries,

age, income and avocation of the petitioner. Further, contended

that their liability is subject to terms and conditions of the

insurance policy.

4. The claimant, in order to substantiate her claim,

examined herself as P.W.2 and other two witnesses as P.Ws.3

and 4, who are Doctors and got marked the documents Exs.P1

to P21. The respondents have not led any evidence and did not

mark any documents on their behalf.

5. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record, awarded global

compensation of Rs.8,000/- with interest at 8% per annum.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award, the present appeal

is filed by the claimant.

6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

claimant that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.8,000/- as global

compensation. The counsel appearing for the claimant would

submit that the claimant was inpatient for a period of 6 days and

though she has suffered injuries of contusion, the Tribunal has

committed an error in not considering the medical bills to the

tune of Rs.33,000/- and awarded global compensation of

Rs.8,000/-, disallowing the medical bills. The counsel also

submits that, Ex.P11-wound certificate, Ex.P12-discharge

summary and medical bills which are marked as Ex.P14 have not

been considered. The counsel also brought to the notice of this

Court, para-22 of the judgment wherein, the Tribunal, while

considering the claim petition held that Ex.P11-wound certificate

is crystal clear that injury sustained by claimant was simple in

nature. Further, admitted that claimant has not adduced any

evidence to show that the accidental injuries have caused

permanent disability to her. It is further observed that, no case

sheet is produced to show that she has taken treatment as

inpatient as mentioned in Ex.P12-discharge summary. Hence,

observed that Ex.P12-discharge summary cannot be taken into

consideration. It is further observed that Ex.P14, medical bills,

which are in handwriting cannot be taken into consideration and

awarded global compensation of Rs.8,000/-.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-Insurance Company would submits that the injuries

sustained by the claimant are simple in nature and there is no

need of admission looking into the nature of injuries and the

Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the documents

have not been proved by summoning the case sheet and hence,

it does not require interference of this Court.

8. Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of the material available on record, the points that arise

for consideration before this Court are:

(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation and it requires interference of this Court?

(ii) What order?

Point No.(i)

9. Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of Ex.P11-wound certificate issued by Harsha Hospital, it

is evident that the injuries are simple in nature. It is also

important to note that the discharge summary issued by Harsha

Hospital clearly indicates that she was admitted to hospital on

26.09.2006 and discharged on 01.10.2006 and she was inpatient

for a period of 6 days. The medical bills which have been

produced as Ex.P14 series is also computerized bills issued by

Harsha Medicals, except final bill issued by Harsha Hospital. No

doubt, the final inpatient detail bill is a manuscript one, the

same is issued by Harsha Hospital mentioning the details as

ward charges 250x6, servicing charges 200x6, nursing charges

150x6, minor OT Rs.2,500/-, traction Rs.6,000/-, surgeon's fee

Rs.6,600/- and Rs.2,500/-.

10. On perusal of the discharge summary which is

marked as Ex.P12, there is no reference that she was treated

with minor OT and the course in the Hospital is mentioned as,

the claimant was treated with below mentioned medications, but

refused x-ray and treatment and wants discharge to continue

treatment at Bowring Hospital. The medications administered to

the claimant are: Inj Hydrocortisone, Inj Tramadol, IV Fluids, Inj

Rantac, Inj Voveron, Inj Inac. Though the discharge bills are

computerized one, it does not bear any signature. On perusal of

Ex.P14, inpatient bill, the same is contrary to the discharge

summary wherein, no such minor OT is conducted, however, the

final inpatient detail bill discloses minor OT charges and also

surgeon fees. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly come to the

conclusion that the final bill to the tune of Rs.31,340/- appears

to be doubtful. However, considered the nature of injuries

sustained by her and awarded global compensation of

Rs.8,000/-. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal to

consider the claimant's appeal with regard to non-consideration

of the bill produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal,

considering the material on record has awarded global

compensation of Rs.8,000/- taking into consideration the nature

of injuries which are simple in nature.

Point No.(ii)

11. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST