Karnataka High Court
Sri Raghavendra Hegde vs Sri Suresh Kulal on 23 June, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.2088 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN
SRI RAGHAVENDRA HEGDE
S/O MANJUNATH HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/O H NO.66, DEVASTHANAKERI
VANDOOR, HONNAVARA-581011.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. MADHU R., ADV. FOR
SRI.K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.)
AND
1. SRI SURESH KULAL
S/O SADANANDA KULAL
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O LAXMI KRUPA
DOOPADAKATTE
HARIKHANDIGE, PERDOOR POST
UDUPI TALUK.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
2ND FLOOR, SRI LAXMI
2
NARASIMHA COMPLEX
OPP:KSRTC DEPOT, NH-66
KUNDAPURA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DATED: 23.06.2022)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
03/03/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.207/2016, ON THE
FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI (SITTING AT
KUNDAPURA), 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 3.3.2018 passed by MACT,
Udupi (sitting at Kundapura) in MVC 207/2016.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 3.10.2015 when the
claimant was proceeding on motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-21-L-1361 from Mangalore towards
NITK side, near Mukka Corporation Bank, at that time,
tempo bearing registration No.KA-20-C-9282 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.Sandeep Navada was
examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents
namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On behalf of the
respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and
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.530,510/- 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 23 years at
the time of the accident and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m.
and Rs.150/- per day by working as sales executive,
but the Tribunal has assessed the income as merely
as Rs.9,000/- p.m. As per wound certificate, he has
sustained displaced comminuted fracture shaft of right
humerus, undisplaced fracture medial epicondyle,
lacerated wound over right palm, lacerated wound
over left knee and right knee. 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 10 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. He has produced medial bills at
Ex.P5. 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.
Even though claimant claims that he was earning
Rs.15,000/- p.m. and Rs.150/- per day by working as
sales executive, except producing the salary
certificate, he has not produced any documents to
establish the same and moreover, he has not
examined the author of the salary certificate. Hence,
the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income as
Rs.9,000/- p.m. The disability stated by the doctor at
36% to upper limb will not affect his day to day
activities. 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 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 driving of the offending
vehicle by its driver.
As per wound certificate, the claimant has
sustained displaced comminuted fracture shaft of right
humerus, undisplaced fracture medial epicondyle,
lacerated wound over right palm, lacerated wound
over left knee and right knee. 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 10 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. He has produced medial bills at
Ex.P5. Therefore, considering the age and avocation of
the claimant and considering the injuries sustained by
the claimant, I am inclined to award compensation of
Rs.60,000/- in addition to compensation of
Rs.5,30,510/- 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.5,90,510/-.
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 23.6.2022 passed by
this Court, the claimant is not entitled for interest for
the delayed period of 271 days in filing the appeal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
