Mohammed Ali vs Jayaram
2022 Latest Caselaw 10071 Kant

                               1




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                        BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

             M.F.A.NO.5964 OF 2011 (MV)

BETWEEN:

MOHAMMED ALI,
S/O HUSSAIN,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
COOLIE, R/O HOSALLIPETE,
CHIKMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.           ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI N.R.RAVIKUMAR, ADV.)

AND:

  1. JAYARAM,
     S/O LATE SRI KRISHNE GOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
     DRIVER OF LORRY NO. KA.12/A, 9786,
     GAVANAHALLI,RAMPURA POST,
     CHIKMAGALUR.

  2. A. KARUNANIDHI
     S/O ANNAMALAI,
     MAJOR, OWNER OF LORRY BEARING
     REGN.NO.KA. 12/A 9786,
     RAMPURA AT AND POST,
     CHIKMAGALUR.

  3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
     UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
     BRANCH OFFICE, CRESENT COURT,
     K.M ROAD, CHIKMAGALUR.

  4. SRI MADHU RAJ,
                                 2




      AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
      DRIVER OF TCS BUS
      BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA.18/3156,
      M/S TCS TRANSPORTCO, KOPPA,
      CHIKMAGALUR.

   5. M/S TCS TRANSPORT CO,
      KOPPA, TOWN, KOPPA,
      CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT.                  ...RESPONDENTS

(R2 AND R5 ARE SERVED, V/O/DT: 28.10.2013, NOTICE TO R1
IS DISPENSED WITH, V/O/DT: 9.1.2015 NOTICE TO R4 IS
D/W, SRI B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADV. FOR R3)
                          ----
      THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173 (1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.4.2011 PASSED IN MVC
NO.249/2007 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE &
MACT, CHIKMAGALUR, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-


                          JUDGMENT

Heard Sri N R Ravikumar, the learned advocate

appearing for the appellant and Sri B C Seetharama Rao,

the learned advocate for 3rd respondent.

2. The claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant

dated 02.04.2011 in MVC 249/2007 on the file of the

Principal District Judge and MACT, Chikmagalur is

dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant is

before this Court in the instant appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties shall

be referred as per their status before the Tribunal.

4. It is claimed that the claimant met with an

accident on 19.02.2007 while he was travelling in a TCS

bus bearing Regn No.KA.18/3156 near Bhattaramane

Sethuve, Indavara on Chikmagalur-Mallandur Road while

1st respondent - the driver of the offending lorry bearing

Regn.No.KA.12/A.9786 drove the vehicle in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against the bus in which

claimant was travelling. It is further claimed that due to

the accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and

he was admitted to M G Hospital, Chickmagalur.

5. It is contended by the claimant that he was a

coolie earning Rs.8000/- per month. The tribunal

concluded that the claimant has not produced any

documentary evidence except producing Ex.P.4 - a true

copy of the wound certificate issued by the police, to

support his case and dismissed the claim petition. It is also

observed by the tribunal that the owner and driver of the

offending vehicle are not made parties.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant is in appeal

before this Court.

7. Appellant who met with an accident on

19.02.2007 filed claim petition. In support of his claim, he

has produced the wound certificate which is marked at

Ex.P.4. It is contended by him, that he was an inmate of

the bus which was dashed by a lorry driven by its driver

rashly and negligently. The tribunal disbelieved the case

of the claimant because in the cross-examination the

claimant has not answered as to who has caused the

accident. The tribunal has also disbelieved his claim that

Ex.P.4 which is the wound certificate does not bear the

seal of the Office which has issued the certificate.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit

that in all connected cases arising from the same accident,

the tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of the

claimants. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel

appearing for the respondent-insurer.

9. This Court has considered the evidence on record

and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the

appellant and the insurer. This Court has perused

Ex.P.4 - wound certificate. The wound certificate reveals

that the claimant has suffered 3 fractures of the ribs and

one tenderness in the right hand on account of the road

traffic accident. Merely because there is no seal on the

wound certificate, it cannot be said that the wound

certificate is fictitious.

10. Learned advocate for the appellant would

submit that Ex.P.4 - wound certificate is the certified copy

issued by the Police Department and it bears the seal of

the Police Department. Thus there is no difficulty in

holding that the injuries suffered by the claimant are on

account of the motor vehicle accident. Since the tribunal

has dismissed the petition it has not undertaken the

exercise of assessing the compensation payable.

11. It is seen from the records that the claimant has

sustained 3 fractures in his ribs and the accident is in the

year 2007. Considering the nature of the injury and year

of accident Rs.15,000/- can be awarded for each of the

fractures and the claimant is entitled to compensation of

Rs.45,000/- for a fracture of 3 ribs. Rs.5,000/-is to be

awarded towards pain and suffering and other incidental

expenses on account of the injuries referred above.

12. Under the circumstances, the appeal is allowed.

The impugned judgment and award dated 02.04.2011

passed by the Principal District Judge and MACT,

Chikmagalur in MVC 249/2007 are set aside.

13. Appellant/claimant is entitled to compensation

of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of

petition till realisation.

14. The insurer/respondents 1 and 2 are jointly

and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded to

the appellant/claimant within 8 weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

brn