Karnataka High Court
Sri B Subraya vs Sri G Ibrahim on 14 June, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.4883 OF 2021(MV)
BETWEEN
SRI B SUBRAYA
S/O HANUMANTHA SHERIGAR
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT BEHIND KUNDEHWARA TEMPLE
VADERHOBLI, KUNDAPURA TALUK.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S SAMPRATHI, ADV.)
AND
1. SRI G IBRAHIM
S/O ABDUL KHADER
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/O GANDHIKATTE GULVADY
KUNDAPURA TALUK.
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE KUNDAPURA
SRI LAXMI NARASIMHA COMPLEX
OPP KSRTC DEPOT NH-66
VADERHOBLI, KUNDAPURA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.G.JANARDHA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
2
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
29.09.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.1218/2016 ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT,
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 and decree dated 29.9.2020 passed
by Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Kundapura in
MVC 1218/2016.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 3.8.2016 the claimant was
proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-20-U-4478 from Kundapura side towards
Koteshwara side near Prabhu petrol bunk, at that
time, car bearing registration No.KA-20-MA-5191
being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a
rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of
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 he 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.
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 himself was
examined as PW-1 and Dr.Dinesh Kumar Shetty was
examined as PW-2 and one eye witness as PW-3 got
exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P136. On
behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined
but got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1. 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.335,784/- 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, this
appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant has
contended that claimant was aged about 60 years at
the time of the accident. As per wound certificate, he
has sustained laceration 12x10 cms extending from
elbow to wrist joint with avulsion taxor muscles,
bleeding deflesh, open fracture proximal ulna left,
areas of skin loss at elbow joint. PW-2, the doctor has
stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered
disability of 36% to upper limb. Due to the accident,
the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was
treated as inpatient for a period of 23 days. Even after
discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position
to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of
pain during treatment. Considering the nature of
injuries, the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he sought for
allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company has contended that the
injuries sustained by the claimant are minor in nature.
The disability stated by the doctor will not affect his
day to day activities and the future earning capacity of
the claimant. Considering the age and avocation of the
claimant, the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable
compensation and it does not call for interference.
Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the judgment of the Tribunal.
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 wound certificate, the claimant has
sustained laceration 12x10 cms extending from elbow
to wrist joint with avulsion taxor muscles, bleeding
deflesh, open fracture proximal ulna left, areas of skin
loss at elbow joint. PW-2, the doctor has stated in his
evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of
36% to upper limb. He was treated as inpatient for a
period of 23 days. Considering the nature of injuries
mentioned in the wound certificate, evidence of
claimant and doctor, I am inclined to award
compensation of Rs.40,000/- in addition to
compensation of Rs.335,784/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
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.3,75,784/- as against Rs.3,35,784/- awarded
by the Tribunal.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest at 6%
p.a. (excluding compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under the head of 'future medical expenses') 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.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
