Karnataka High Court
Syed Razio Ahamed vs M/S. J.M.J. Kitchen Consultancy on 29 November, 2021
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
M.F.A. NO.8335/2014
BETWEEN:
SYED RAZIO AHAMED
S/O SRI SIUBGATH @ SIBGATH ULLA
AGED 20 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.32
VALMIKINAGAR, 3RD CROSS
BENGALURU -560 088.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI K V SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. J.M.J. KITCHEN CONSULTANCY
SERVICE (P) LTD
NO.1, DIVYA JYOTHI APRATMENTS,
CORPORATION SITE NO.1
'SRINI VAGILU' EXTESNION,
KORAMANGALA, 4TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU -560095.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
2. M/S TATA AIG GEN INSURANCE CO LTD
ISSUING OFFICE,
1ST FLOOR, OFFICE NO.612,
80FT FORAD, 6TH BLOCK,
KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU -560031
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
2
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED 09.10.2014 PASSED IN
MVC NO.594/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES, XXVI ACMM (SCCH-09) BENGALURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is claimant's appeal filed under Section 173(1)
Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated
09.10.2014 passed in MVC No. 594/2013 on the file of the
Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bangalore, (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'),
seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and
ranking before the Tribunal.
3. On 19.11.2012 at about 3.30 pm, when the
claimant was proceeding as a pillion rider on the motorcycle
bearing registration No. KA-01-EZ-1676, near Krupanidhi
College, Gunjur-Karmalaram road, Bengaluru, at that time
the two-wheeler in which he was proceeding as pillion rider
was knocked down by a Toyota Innova car bearing
registration No.KA-01-MC-5367, due to which, he sustained
grievous injuries. Therefore, he filed claim petition in MVC
No.594/2013 on the file of the Tribunal, seeking
compensation.
4. After service of summons, respondent No.1
unrepresented and placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2-
Insurance Company contested the claim petition by filing
written statement denying the averments made in the
claim petition. On the basis of pleadings on record, the
Tribunal has formulated issues for its consideration. In
order to prove the case, claimant examined three
witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and got marked 12 documents as
Exs.P1 to P12. On the contrary, no evidence was adduced
on behalf of respondents.
5. The Tribunal, after considering the material on
record, by its judgment and award dated 09.10.2014
allowed the claim petition in-part and awarded
compensation of Rs.2,14,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.
from the date of the petition till realisation. Considering the
fact that, the rider of the motorcycle did not possess valid
and effective driving Licence, the Tribunal has fastened
liability on respondent No.1-insured to satisfy the award
amount. Being not satisfied with the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, as well as fastening the liability on
respondent No.1-insured, the claimant has preferred this
appeal.
6. Heard Sri K.V. Shyamaprasada, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Sri B. Pradeep learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company.
7. Sri K.V. Shyamaprasada learned counsel for
the appellant argued that considering the nature of injury
sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal has awarded
meager amount of compensation. He also submits that the
Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the claimant.
Claimant has filed IA.I of 2014 along with the copy of
Driving Licence extract of the rider of the motorcycle and
submitted that Insurer is to satisfy the award as rider of the
motorcycle was having valid Driving Licence as on the date
of accident.
8. On the other hand, Sri B. Pradeep, learned
counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted
that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is just and proper
and does not call for interference in this appeal.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I
have given my thoughtful consideration to their respective
submission. It is an undisputed fact that the claimant
sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident
occurred on 19.11.2012. The Tribunal, after considering
the fact that rider of motorcycle did not possess valid and
effective Driving Licence to drive the motorcycle and as
such, exonerated the Insurance Company from
indemnifying the insured. However, looking into the
documents produced by the appellant along with application
IA.I of 2014, which is not disputed by the learned counsel
appearing for respondent-Insurance Company, I am of the
view that the Insurance Company is to be directed to
satisfy the award.
10. In respect of quantum of compensation is
concerned, taking into account the age of the injured as on
the date of accident, so also, as the disability sustained by
the claimant, in my considered opinion, awarding of
Rs.54,000/- towards loss of future income would meet the
ends of justice. Further, taking to consideration the
deposition of PW3-Doctor who opined that the claimant
sustained grievous injuries, the claimant is entitled for
Rs.40,000/- towards 'pain and suffering'. Rs.15,000/- is
awarded towards 'food, nutrition, attendant and
conveyance'; Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards 'loss of
amenities'. No interference is called for in respect of
compensation awarded towards medical expenses and
future medical expenses. Accordingly, the judgment and
award of the Tribunal is modified. Claimant is entitled for
the total compensation of Rs.2,79,000/- as against
Rs.2,14,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.
The Insurance Company shall satisfy the award amount
within a period of eight weeks from date of receipt of
certified copy of this judgment. In the result, appeal is
allowed in-part.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SB
