Shri Siddaraju vs The Manager
2021 Latest Caselaw 3600 Kant

                          1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

                       BEFORE

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

               MFA No.8092 OF 2016(MV)

BETWEEN:

SHRI SIDDARAJU
S/O SANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
NO.74, MARKALU
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.                         ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI.K SHANTHARAJ, ADV.)

AND

1.     THE MANAGER
       RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO. LTD.
       EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR
       NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING
       M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

2.     MRS. R KAVITHA
       MAJOR
       W/O RANGANATHAN
       NO.572, SRI SHIVARAMA CAREERS
       PERUNDURU RAJ ROAD
       KUPPANNA HOTEL LAND, ERODE
       TAMIL NADU - 642 001.         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.H C BETSUR, ADV. FOR R1:
    NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W V/O DTD 06.08.2019)
                            2




     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.07.2016 PASSED
IN MVC NO.5006/13 ON THE FILE OF THE 7TH
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT,
BENGALURU, 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 27.07.2016 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in

MVC No.5006/2013.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 05.02.2013 at about 03.50

A.M., the claimant was on duty as a Police Constable

and was standing on corner of BB Road, near IAF

Ganesha Temple very carefully and cautiously by

observing all the traffic rules and regulations, at that

time one Mahindra Max Jeep bearing registration

No.TN-33-AM-6917 driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner without observing the traffic rules

and regulations 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 seeking compensation. It was pleaded

that he spent 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.1

appeared through counsel and filed written statement

in which the averments made in the petition were

denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false

and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded

that the accident was due to the negligence on the

part of the claimant himself. It was further pleaded

that as on the date of the accident, the claimant was

not working at duty place and was crossing the road

without observing the traffic. Hence, the negligence is

more on the part of claimant. The age, avocation and

income of the claimant and the medical expenses are

denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of

compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant.

Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

The respondent No.2 did not appear before the

Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed

ex-parte.

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 got exhibited documents

namely Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. On behalf of the

respondents, neither examined any witness nor

exhibited any document. 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.78,140/- along with interest at

the rate of 8% 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

raised the following contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he

was working as a Police Constable and was getting a

salary of Rs.17,500/- per month, but the Tribunal has

taken monthly income as merely as Rs.14,070/- per

month.

Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as

inpatient for a period of 5 days. He has spent money

for medical expense. But the Tribunal has failed to

grant any compensation towards medical expenses.

He has suffered lot of pain during treatment.

Considering the same, the compensation granted by

the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities',

'pain and suffering' and other heads are on the lower

side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for

the Insurance Company has raised following counter

contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he

was working as a Police Constable and was getting a

salary of Rs.17,500/- per month, as per Ex.P.10-Pay

Slips, the claimant was getting a salary of Rs.14,070/-

per month. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly

assessed the monthly income of the claimant of

Rs.14,070/- and granted Rs.28,140/- towards loss of

income for a period of two months.

Secondly, even though the claimant claims that

he was spent money for medical expenses, since he is

a Government Servant and having Arogya Bhagya

Scheme, he got reimbursement from the Arogya

Bhagya Scheme. Therefore, the claimant is not

entitled for the compensation under the head of

'medical expenses'. Since the claimant has continued

in his job and has not examined the doctor, he is not

entitled for 'future income'. The injuries suffered by

the claimant are minor in nature.

Thirdly, considering the oral and documentary

evidence, the Tribunal has granted just and

reasonable compensation and it does not call for

interference.

Lastly, in view of judgment of the Division Bench

of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE xzc

AND OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS

(MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of

on 24.8.2020), the claimants are entitled for 6%

interest but the Tribunal has granted 8% interest

which is on the higher side. Hence, he sought for

dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the judgment and award.

9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has

sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of the offending

vehicle by its driver.

Even though the claimant claims that he was

getting a salary of Rs.17,500/- per month, as per

Ex.P.10-Pay Slips, he was getting a salary of

Rs.14,070/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal has

rightly considered the monthly income of the claimant

as Rs.14,070/-. Since the claimant has continued in

his job and he has not examined the doctor to assess

the disability suffered by him, he is not entitled for

any compensation towards 'future income due to

disability'.

As per wound certificate, the claimant has

sustained type I open fracture both bones of right

forearm lower 1/3rd. He was treated as inpatient for a

period of 5 days. Considering the evidence of the

claimant and the injuries suffered by him, I am of the

opinion that the claimant is entitled for the

compensation of Rs.42,210/- (Rs.14,070*3 months)

under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered

grievous injuries. He has suffered lot of pain during

treatment. Considering the same, I am inclined to

enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

under the head of 'loss of amenities and conveyance,

food and nourishment, attendance charges' from

Rs.10,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and 'pain and suffering'

from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.

In respect of medical expenses is concerned, the

claimant has not produced any document to show that

how much he has spent for medical expenses. Since

he was a Government Servant and having Arogya

Bhagya Scheme, he got reimbursement from the said

Scheme. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not

granted any compensation towards 'medical

expenses'.

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 suffering 40,000 50,000 Loss of amenities and 10,000 40,000 food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges Loss of income during 28,140 42,210 laid up period Total 78,140 1,32,210

11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in

part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation

of Rs.1,32,210/-.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the compensation amount along with interest from the

date of filing of the claim petition till the date of

realization, within a period of six weeks from the date

of receipt of copy of this judgment. The enhanced

compensation shall carry 6% interest.

The Tribunal is directed to release the enhanced

compensation in favour of the claimant after due

verification.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HA/-