Karnataka High Court
Master Manu vs M/S. T.J. Naik And Co on 21 June, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
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.4615 OF 2020(MV)
BETWEEN:
MASTER MANU
S/O. KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
R/AT CHOWDESHWARIPURA VILLAGE
(VADDARA DODDI)
ANJANAPURA POST
KAYLANCHA HOBLI
RAMANAGARA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
SINCE APPELLANT IS MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
MR. KRISHNA
S/O. NANJUNDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.RAJU S., ADV.)
AND
1. M/S. T.J. NAIK AND CO
NO.77/A, N.R. TOWER
ABHAYA EYE CLINIC BUILDING
100 FEET RING ROAD
2
BSK 3RD STAGE
BANGALORE-560 085.
2. THE MANAGER
M/S. THE NEW INDIA
INSURANCE CO. LTD.
NO.40, LAKSHMI COMPLEX
2ND FLOOR, OPPOSITE
VANIVILAS HOSPITAL
K.R. ROAD, KOTE
BANGALORE-560 009
REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.R.LAKSHMINARYANA, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
30.08.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.167/2017, ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC.,
RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSIONS, 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 30.08.2019 passed
by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC,
Ramanagara in MVC No.167/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 22.04.2016 at about 01.05
P.M., when the claimant was going in a motorcycle
bearing Registration No.KA-11-W-2109 along with
Raghu and Swamy for treatment for his stomach pain
to Channapatna Hospital, then opposite Janapada
Loka on B.M.Road, the driver of the Car bearing
Registration No.KA-04-MM-9567 drove the same in a
rash and negligent manner and without giving any
signal at once turned the Car towards Kamath Hotel
Near Janapada Loka and dashed against the
motorcycle 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. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false
and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded
that the accident was due to the rash and negligent
riding of the vehicle by the claimant himself who was
riding the vehicle along with the two pillion riders and
not due to the driver of the offending vehicle. The
driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid
driving licence as on the date of the accident. The
liability is subject to terms and conditions of the
policy. 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 father of the claimant was
examined as PW-1 and got exhibited documents
namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On behalf of the respondents,
one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited
document 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.20,000/- along with interest at
the rate of 7% 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 due to the accident, the claimant has
suffered three injuries. He has suffered lot of pain
during the treatment. The global compensation of
Rs.20,000/- awarded 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
claimant sustained three injuries which are simple in
nature. He was treated as out patient. Considering
the injuries suffered by the claimant, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable. 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.
Due to the accident, the claimant sustained
simple injuries. He has treated as outpatient.
Considering the evidence of PW-1, considering the
Wound Certificate as per Ex.P6, I am of the opinion
that in addition to the compensation of Rs.20,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal, another Rs.20,000/- is
awarded with 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.40,000/-.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest @ 7%
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.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HA/-
