Karnataka High Court
Nazeer Ahmed S/O Rustumsab ... vs M/S Chetak Travels on 25 July, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
MFA No. 25066 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 25066 OF 2010 (MV-)
BETWEEN:
1. NAZEER AHMED S/O RUSTUMSAB RAJJABALL
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: CENTERING and BARBENDING
MESTRY, R/O: KALAGHATGI, DIST: DHARWAD.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADV.)
AND:
1. M/S CHETAK TRAVELS
BY VENKATESH NARVEKARAGE,: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER
OF THE BUSNO. KA-25/A-9360, R/O: H.NO. 82,
3RCROSSADARSH NAGAR, HUBLI -32
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
Digitally signed THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., ENKAY
by J MAMATHA
J
Location: COMPLEX, KESHAWAPUR, HUBLI - 23.
Dharwad
MAMATHA Date:
2022.07.27
11:37:47 3. SURESH S/O MAHABALESHWAR GHATTAD
+0530
BY VENKATESH NARVEKAR AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER
OF THE BUS KA -25/A-9360 R/O: H.NO. 227, PATTAR ONI,
A/P KALLUR, TQ and DIST: DHARWAD.
4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
N.W.K.R.T.C. DEPOT. HOSUR, HUBLI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.C.JAINAR, ADV. FOR R2,
SMT.P.R.BENTUR, ADV. FOR R4,
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH,
R1 -SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
MFA No. 25066 of 2010
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:30-08-2010
PASSED IN MVC.NO.514/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT, HUBLI,
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
Though this matter is listed for admission, with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken
up for final disposal.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the appellant is
that on 23.03.2008 at about 8.30 a.m., when the appellant was
traveling in a bus bearing registration No.KA-25/9360 to go to
Kalaghatagi, the driver of the said bus drove the bus in a rash
and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle and
dashed against the road side tree. As a result of the accident,
the appellant sustained injuries and took treatment both as
inpatient and outpatient. Before the accident, he was hale and
healthy and working as a Contractor of Centering and Bar
bending work at Hubballi-Dharwad and earning Rs.9,000/- p.m.
MFA No. 25066 of 2010
Due to the accidental injuries, he is permanently disabled and
he has lost his income.
3. In support of his claim, he got examined himself as
PW-1 and a doctor as PW-2 and got marked documents Ex.P.1
to Ex.P.13. On the other hand, the respondents got examined
RW-1 and got marked policy as Ex.R.1. The Tribunal after
consideration of both oral and documentary evidence granted
compensation of Rs.5,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
and directed NWKRTC to pay the compensation. Being
aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the present appeal
is filed by the injured claimant.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that the appellant took treatment both as inpatient and
outpatient and the doctor who was examined as PW-2 has
categorically deposed that appellant had disability to an extent
of 25% and that the appellant had pain in chewing the food.
Though wound certificate disclosed that the appellant had
sustained simple injuries and disability certificate was produced
as Ex.P.13, the said material documents are not considered by
MFA No. 25066 of 2010
the Tribunal while granting compensation and hence the same
requires interference by this Court.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.4/NWKRTC submits that the Tribunal on taking
into consideration the material documents has come to the
conclusion that the injuries suffered are simple in nature and
though the doctor examined as PW-2 has deposed that the
appellant had suffered 25%, the same has not been
substantiated. The Wound Certificate Ex.P.6 also show that the
injuries are simple in nature and other records disclose that the
appellant took treatment as an outpatient. After going through
the material document, the Tribunal has rightly awarded
compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant and the same does
not call for any interference.
6. Having heard the respective counsel and perusing
the material on record, the point that arise for consideration of
this Court are:
i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in
awarding only an amount of Rs.5,000/-?
MFA No. 25066 of 2010
ii) Whether it requires interference of this Court?
7. The occurrence of the accident and the fact that the
appellant took treatment in the hospital is not in dispute. In
support of the claim of the appellant, Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.12, the
OPD Slips are also marked wherein it discloses that he took
treatment on 23.03.2008, 01.04.2008 and 07.04.2008 as an
outpatient even subsequent to the date of accident and he was
on follow up treatment. The out patient records also disclose
that the appellant is having difficulty in opening the mouth and
infected oral cavity leading to poor and hygiene. These
materials have not been considered by the Tribunal while
determining reasonable compensation. In paragraph 11, the
Tribunal has mentioned that appellant had taken treatment for
5 to 6 times and during that period he never complained of
disability which PW-2 had stated in his disability certificate.
The evidence of PW-2 further show that there was no fracture
injury to the gums of the appellant. Hence, the Tribunal did
not accept the disability certificate. But as per the doctor's
evidence, there was pain and that the appellant is having
difficulty to chew the food. Hence, taking into consideration
MFA No. 25066 of 2010
the above facts, it is appropriate to enhance the compensation
from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.25,000/- as global compensation.
8. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part,
ii) The judgment and award of the Principal Senior
Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Hubballi, in
M.V.C.No.514/2008 dated 30.08.2010 stands
modified,
iii) The appellant is entitled to global compensation of
Rs.25,000/- instead of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from
the date of petition till the date of realization,
iv) Respondent No.4 is directed to make the payment
within a period of four weeks from today.
(Sd/-)
JUDGE
Jm/-
