Karnataka High Court
Smt Laxmi vs Sri Kiran Kumar on 15 July, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.3710 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN
SMT LAXMI
W/O.NARASIMHA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O.SANNIDHI MANE
SHANTHI NAGAR, MADHUVANA,
ACHLADI POST, KAVADI VILLAGE
UDUPI TALUK.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.NAGARAJA H R., ADV.)
AND
1. SRI KIRAN KUMAR
S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/O.D.NO.1-30-2530
KORAGAPPA SHETTY COMPOUND
ASHOK NAGARA POST, BOLOORU VILLAGE
MANGALORE.
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
BRANCH OFFICE:
MANIPAL, UDUPI TALUK
REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAVISH BENNI, ADV. FOR R2:
SRI. JEEVAN K., ADV. FOR R1)
2
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
07/02/2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.1232/2016, ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL
MACT, UDUPI (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA), PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act') has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved
by the judgment dated 07.02.2019 passed by the
Additional District Judge and Additional MAT, Udupi
(Sitting at Kundapura), Kundapura in MVC
No.1232/2016.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 24.05.2016 at about 04.45
p.m., the claimant was walking on the eastern side of
the mud portion on the road NH66 from Kota towards
Saligrama side. When she reached near Saligrama
Bus Stop, Chitrapadi Village, Udupi Taluk, at that
time, the driver of the Bolero Vehicle bearing
Registration No.KA-19-D-5581 drove the same in a
very high speed and rash and negligent manner came
from Kundapura side towards Udupi side and dashed
to 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 she 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
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. 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.1 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 herself was
examined as PW-1 and got exhibited documents
namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. On behalf of the
respondents, two witnesses were examined as RW-1
and RW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1
to Ex.R5. 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.53,600/- 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, the present appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant has
contended that due to the accident, the claimant has
suffered grievous injuries. She has spent more than
Rs.23,000/- towards medical expenses. She has
suffered lot of pain during the treatment. The global
compensation of Rs.53,600/- granted by the Tribunal
is on lower side. Hence, he sought for enhancement of
compensation.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company has contended that the
injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature.
She has not examined the doctor. Except producing
medical bills, no other documents have been
produced. Therefore, considering the documents
available on record and considering the evidence of
the claimant, the Tribunal has granted just and
reasonable compensation. Hence, he sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
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.
As per the Wound Certificate, the claimant has
suffered reddish abrasion on the back of right
forearm, laceration of 3cmX3cm bone deep on the
back of inner aspect of right hand with fracture of 5th
metacarpal bone. She has not examined the doctor.
She has spent more than Rs.23,000/- towards medical
expenses. Therefore, considering the evidence of the
Pw-1, considering the medical bills, discharge
summary and the injuries suffered by the claimant,
I am of the opinion that in addition to the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, another
Rs.25,000/- without interest.
10. 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.78,600/- against Rs.53,600/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest @ 6%
p.a. 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 excluding
the interest for enhanced compensation.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HA/-
