Veerakyatharaya vs Muknaram
2022 Latest Caselaw 525 Kant

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                        PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

                             AND

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

               M.F.A.No.8336/2015 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:

VEERAKYATHARAYA
S/O APPANNAPPA
AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.337/3, 4TH CROSS
SUBHASH NAGAR, NELAMANGALA TOWN
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

THE APPELLANT IS MENTALLY WEAK.
HENCE REPRESENTED BY HIS
W/O SMT. GEETHA S.H.
                                           ....APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . MUKNARAM
    S/O SHESHARAMJI
    R/AT NO.7/1, D.K. LANE
    1ST CROSS, CHIKKPET
    BANGALORE-560 053

2 . THE REGIONAL MANAGER
    THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
    LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX
                            2


    RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS, P.B.NO.25123
    BENGALURU-560 025
                                         .... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
 VIDE ORDER DATED 05.02.2021 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)

                         *****

     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.09.2015
PASSED IN MVC NO.4306/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.

     IA NO.1/2022 IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 27 READ
WITH SECION 151 OF CPC FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE.


     THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS ALONG WITH IA
NO.1/2022 THIS DAY, RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR, J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed seeking enhancement of the

compensation by modifying the judgment and award dated

9th September, 2015 passed by the Court of III Additional

Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Bengaluru (SCCH-18) ('Tribunal' for short) in MVC No.

4306/2014, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the petition

in part and awarded compensation of Rs.34,68,000/- with

interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of

petition, till the date of deposit.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein

are referred as per the ranks occupied by them before the

Tribunal.

3. The brief factual matrix of the case is that, on

20.08.2014 at about 9.30 p.m, the petitioner was

proceeding as a pedestrian from T.B. Bus Stop towards his

office. At that time, the rider of TVS XL bearing registration

No. KA.01.EF.9808 rode the same in a rash and negligent

manner and dashed to the petitioner. As a result of the

said accident, the claimant sustained severe head injury.

He was shifted to M.S. Ramaiah Harsha Hospital at

Nelamangala and thereafter, he was referred to Columbia

Asia Hospital for better treatment, wherein he underwent

surgery.

4. It is the case of the claimant that, while

discharging from the hospital, he was advised to take

follow-up treatment and he has been taking treatment till

today as an out-patient and he has spent an amount of

Rs.30 Lakhs towards medical expenses, conveyance and

nourishment.

5. It is also the case of the claimant that, he is an

Advocate by profession and due to head injury suffered in

the accident in question, he has become mentally retarded

person and hence, the claim petition is submitted through

his wife/next friend. Therefore, he claimed compensation of

Rs.01.00 Crore with interest thereon, under various heads.

6. Before the Tribunal, though the second

respondent-Insurer has contested the petition on various

grounds, but admitted the coverage of insurance. However

he denied that the rider of the alleged motor cycle was

possessing a valid and effective Driving Licence and further

asserted that, there is negligence on the part of the

claimant/injured. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the

claim petition.

7. After considering the oral and documentary

evidence produced by the both the parties, the Tribunal has

awarded compensation of Rs.34,68,000/- with interest at

the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of petition till the

date of deposit under the following heads:

Sl.No.        Compensation Heads                 Amount in Rupees

1        Pain and suffering                       1,00,000-00

2        Loss of amenities                           50,000-00

3        Medical Expenses                         11,48,000-00

4        Future medical expenses                     75,000-00

5        Nourishment    &            attendant       50,000-00
         charges
6        Conveyance charges                          25,000-00

7        Loss of future income                    19,80,000-00

8        Nursing charges                             40,000-00

                             Total                34,68,000-00

8. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and

award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this

appeal under Section 173(1) of the M.V. Act, seeking

enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

9. During pendency of this proceedings, the

appellant/ claimant has filed an application in IA No.1/2022

for production of additional documents/evidence pertaining

to the medical bills to the tune of Rs,8,55,330/-.

10. We have heard Shri. Shripad V. Shastri, learned

Advocate appearing for the appellant/claimant and Sri. B.C.

Seetharama Rao, learned Advocate appearing for the

second respondent-M/s. Oriental Insurance Company

Limited ( 'Insurer' for short)

11. Learned Advocate for the appellant/claimant

would contend that, the Tribunal has awarded minimum

compensation under the head of 'Pain and Suffering'. Since

the claimant has suffered severe head injury, which resulted

in 100% physical disability, the amount awarded under the

head of 'Loss of amenities in life' is on lower side. He would

further contend that, though the Tribunal has considered

the age of the claimant as 53 years and the physical

disability at 100%, the future prospects were not granted,

though the injured/claimant cannot continue his profession

as an Advocate, as he is completely bed-ridden being

mentally retarded. It is further asserted that an attendant

is required to attend the injured/claimant all along through-

out his life and no compensation was awarded under the

said head. He further contended that, under the head of

'Future Medical Expenses', only Rs.75,000/- is awarded,

but the claimant has already spent more than Rs.08 Lakhs

towards medical expenses and hence, the matter requires

re-consideration and as such, he sought for remand of the

matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration and allowing IA

No.1/2022 for production of additional evidence.

12. Learned Advocate for the second respondent-

Insurer has not disputed the liability of the insurer. He

would contend that, there is no proper evidence regarding

the grounds urged on behalf of the claimant now and since

production of additional evidence is sought, the matter may

be remanded for re-appreciation of the entire evidence and

also for recording additional evidence by giving an

opportunity to the respondent/insurer to cross-examine the

witnesses on additional evidence.

13. Having heard the arguments and considering the

rival contentions, it is an undisputed fact that, the claimant

was a practicing Advocate and he was aged about 53 years

when he met with an accident. Further, the records also

disclose that, he suffered head injury and he was

hospitalized for nearly 47 days and he was also under

treatment for a substantial long period. The evidence of the

Medical Officer, who treated the injured/claimant disclose

that the disability suffered by the injured/claimant is 100%

and considering this aspect, the Tribunal has awarded

compensation of Rs.34,68,000/-. However, under the head

of 'Future medical expenses', the Tribunal has awarded only

Rs.75,000/-. Therefore, considering the gravity of head

injury and additional documents are being produced to

show incurrence of future medical expenses to the tune of

more than Rs.8,00,000/-, they are required to be tested

during the evidence.

14. The counsels appearing for the parties on both

sides submit that the matter may be remanded to the

Tribunal by allowing the IA No.1/2022 for production of

additional evidence with a direction to lead further evidence

on the additional documents produced to enable the

Tribunal to re-appreciate the evidence.

15. We find some force in the arguments advanced

by the learned counsels appearing for the parties on both

sides. Considering the fact that the matter is of the year

2015, this Court is required to fix the time limit for disposal

of the matter.

16. Under these circumstances, looking to the

peculiar facts and circumstances, keeping open all the

issues, we find it just and proper to remand the matter to

the Tribunal by setting aside the impugned judgment, by

allowing the IA No.1/2022 for leading additional evidence.

Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is disposed of.

ii) The impugned judgment and award is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for re- appreciation of the evidence by allowing both the parties to lead further evidence on ' Future Medical Expenses'.

iii) IA No.1/2022 is allowed. The appellant/claimant is permitted to produce additional documents as prayed for in the said application.

iv) The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of the records.

The Registry is directed to send the original

documents produced along with IA No.1/2022 to the

Tribunal to enable the appellant/claimant to lead evidence

on those documents.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE KGR*