Karnataka High Court

Ramachandra V vs Sri Nagaraja Das M.T on 27 June, 2022

Bench: H T Prasad

                            1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                        BEFORE

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

               MFA No.7181 OF 2019(MV)

BETWEEN:

Ramachandra V.,
S/o Veerabadrappa,
Aged 40 years,
#3212/A, 2nd Cross,
Rajyothsava Nagar,
K.S.Layout, Bangalore Pin-560 078.        ... Appellant

(By Sri.R.Govindarajan, Advocate)

AND:

Sri. Nagaraja Das M.T.,
S/o Tulasidas.M.,
#244, 6th Main Road,
4th Blcok, Jayanagar Pin-560011.          ... Respondent

(By Sri.Lokesh A.N., Advocate (absent))

      This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:11.07.2019 passed
in MVC No.6590/2017 on the file of the I Additional Small
Causes Judge & MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-11), partly
allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking
enhancement of compensation.

      This MFA, coming on for hearing, this day, this
Court, delivered the following:
                             2



                    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 11.07.2019 passed

by MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-11) in MVC

No.6590/2017.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 09.04.2017 at about 2.30

p.m., the claimant was proceeding on motorcycle

bearing registration No.KA-05/JH-6082 from Sangam

Circle 40th cross to BTM Layout. At that time, a car

bearing registration No.KA-05/MG-7444, 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

appeared through counsel and filed written statement

in which the averments made in the petition were

denied. The age, avocation and income of the

claimant and the medical expenses are denied.

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.Nataraj Kannambadi was

examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents

namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. On behalf of the

respondents, neither any witness was examined nor

got exhibited documents. 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.50,000/- along with interest @

9% p.a. and directed the respondent to deposit the

compensation amount along with interest. Being

aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the claimant has

raised the following contentions:

Firstly, due to the accident the claimant has

suffered grievous injuries, he has examined the doctor

who has assessed the whole body disability as 10%.

He has suffered lot of pain during treatment and he

has to suffer the disability and unhappiness

throughout his life. Considering the same, the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal for 'pain and

sufferings', 'loss of amenities' are on the lower side

and the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation

for 'loss of income during laid-up period'.

Secondly, he has spent Rs.1,87,300/- towards

medical expenses. He has produced the medical bills

and it has not been disputed. But the Tribunal only on

the ground that this amount has been paid by his

employer, even though in the cross-examination, it is

specifically stated that he has to reimburse the same

to the employer, the Tribunal has not granted any

compensation under this head. In support of his

contentions he has relied on the judgment reported in

1969 ACJ 363 in the case of PERRY vs. CLEAVER.

Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.

7. None appears for the respondent. Even on

23.02.2022, 03.03.2022, 15.03.2022, 23.03.2022

08.06.2022 and 16.06.2022 none appeared for the

respondent.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

Perused the judgment and award and the original

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 has suffered full

thickness ACL tear, posterior tear of lateral mensical

tear, Grade II sprain of LCL. Considering the evidence

of the doctor and considering the wound certificate, I

am of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to

compensation under the head 'loss of income during

laid-up period' in a sum of Rs.25,000/-.

In respect of medical expenses is concerned, the

claimant has produced medical bill as per Ex.P7 to the

tune of Rs.1,87,2560. The same is not disputed. The

Tribunal only on the ground that the amount has been

paid by the employer of the claimant has not granted

any compensation under this head. In fact the

claimant in his cross-examination has stated that he

has repaid the same to his company. Just because his

employer has paid the medical bill it cannot be held

that the claimant is not entitled for compensation

under the said head. In fact in PERRY (supra) it is

held that just as an insurance amount was the fruit of

premiums paid in the past pension was the fruit of

services already rendered; the wrongdoer should not

be given benefit of the same by deducting it from the

damages. In view of the above, the claimant is

entitled to Rs.50,000/- for medical expenses.

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 30,000 30,000 Medical expenses 0 50,000 Food, nourishment, 5,000 5,000 conveyance and attendant charges Loss of income during 0 25,000 laid up period Loss of amenities 15,000 15,000 Total 50,000 1,25,000

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.1,25,000/- as against Rs.50,000/- awarded by

the Tribunal.

In view of the law laid down by a Division Bench

of this Court in JOYEETA BOSE (supra) the

enhanced compensation carries interest @ 6% p.a.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the compensation amount along with interest @ 9%

p.a. (interest @ 6% p.a. on the enhanced

compensation) from the date of filing of the claim