Sri G V Lokesh vs The Branch Manager
2022 Latest Caselaw 9227 Kant

                       1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2022

                    BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

          MFA No.7182 OF 2019(MV)

BETWEEN

SRI G V LOKESH
S/O VIJAYAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
OPERATOR & TECHNICIAN
MALALESWARA EXTENSION
GANADHAL, HULIYAR HOBLI
TUMKUR DISTRICT PIN-586 221.
                                      ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI.M V MAHESWARAPPA, ADV.)

AND

1.    THE BRANCH MANAGER
      THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
      MUDDAPPA COMPLEX
      SHIRANI ROAD
      TUMKUR DISTRICT PIN-572 101.

2.    JAGADEESH
      S/O SHIVAPRASAD
      AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
      R/AT MITHRA MANDALI NILAYA
                              2




     OPP. SBI BANK
     B.H.ROAD, C.N.HALLI TQ
     TUMKUR DISTRICT PIN-572 137.

                                        ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL, ADV.
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
30.08.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO. 813/2016 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & XIX MACT,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS 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 30.8.2018 passed by the

Senior Civil Judge & JMFC & XIX MACT,

Chikkanayakanahalli in MVC 813/2016.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 10.4.2015 when the

claimant was walking on the side of the road near

Harenahalli Gate, at that time, a motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-44-Q-3712 being ridden by its rider

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 riding of the offending vehicle by

its rider.

4. On service of notice, the respondent No.1

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 respondent No.2 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.Pradeep was examined as

PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to

Ex.P37. On behalf of the respondents, neither any

witness was examined nor any document was

produced. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned

judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place

on account of rash and negligent riding of the

offending vehicle by its rider, as a result of which, the

claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held

that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of

Rs.333,860/- 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 the claimant was working as an

operator and technician and earning Rs.25,000/- per

month. PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence

that the claimant has suffered disability of 10% to

whole body. Due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as

inpatient for a period of 15 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. The Tribunal has failed to grant any

compensation under the heads of 'loss of amenities'

and 'loss of income during laid-up period'. Considering

the nature of injuries, the compensation granted by

the Tribunal under the heads of 'pain and sufferings'

and other incidental heads are 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.

Even though no compensation is awarded under the

head of 'loss of amenities', but the Tribunal has

granted compensation twice under the head of 'future

medical expenses'. Further, considering the injuries

sustained by the claimant and considering the age and

avocation of the claimant, the overall compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable

compensation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the

appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the judgment and award 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 riding of the offending

vehicle by its rider.

As per wound certificate, the claimant has

sustained fracture of right tibia and fibula. PW-2, the

doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has

suffered disability of 10% to whole body. The

claimant is aged about 26 years at the time of the

accident. The nature of injuries suggests that the

claimant must have been under rest and treatment for

a period of 4 months. Therefore, the claimant is

entitled for compensation of Rs.36,000/- (Rs.9,000*4

months) under the head 'loss of income during laid up

period'.

The claimant was treated as inpatient for more

than 15 days in the hospital and thereafter, has

received further treatment. Due to the accident, the

claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also

undergone surgery. He has suffered lot of pain during

treatment and he has to suffer with the disability

stated by the doctor throughout his life. However, the

Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation twice

under the head of 'future medical expenses'. Hence,

considering the same, compensation of Rs.40,000/-

out of total compensation of Rs.70,000/- which has

been awarded by the Tribunal under the head of

'future medical expenses', is treated as compensation

towards 'loss of amenities' and remaining Rs.30,000/-

is treated as compensation towards 'future medical

expenses'. Further, I am inclined to enhance the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head

of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.25,000/- to

Rs.50,000/-.

Considering the nature of injuries, the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other

heads is just and reasonable.

10. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

following compensation:

As awarded As awarded Compensation under by the by this different Heads Tribunal Court (Rs.) (Rs.) Pain and sufferings 25,000 50,000 Medical expenses 45,260 45,260 Food, nourishment, 10,000 10,000 conveyance and attendant charges Loss of income during 0 36,000 laid up period Loss of amenities 0 40,000 Loss of future income 183,600 183,600 Future medical expenses 70,000 30,000 (Rs.40,000+Rs.30,000) Total 333,860 394,860

11. 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.394,860/-.

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.

In view of the order dated 21.6.2022 passed by

this Court, the claimant is not entitled for interest for

the delayed period of 230 days in filing the appeal.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DM