Sri Muniyappa vs Sri Madhusudana
2022 Latest Caselaw 9922 Kant

                         1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


       DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                      BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.9005 OF 2013(MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SRI. MUNIYAPPA
S/O CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT
MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE
JANGAMAKOTE POST,
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

                                        ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N. GOPALKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. MADHUSUDANA
S/O KALLESH REDDY
MAJOR IN AGE
BASAVANATTHA VILLAGE,
TAMAKA POST
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563101.

2. HDFC ERGO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, H.M. GENEVA HOUSE,
                              2


NO.14, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 052,
REP.BY ITS MANAGER.
                                     ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 14.03.2014, NOTICE
TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
18.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.8219/2010 BY THE ADDL.
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING TO
ENHANCE     THE   COMPENSATION    AWARDED    FROM
RS.12,000/- TO RS.15,00,000/-.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                          JUDGMENT

Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the

appellant and the learned Advocate appearing for the

Insurer. Notice to the owner is dispensed with as

there is no claim against him as the insurer has

admitted the liability.

2. The claimant in this appeal is questioning the

judgment and award dated 18-01-2013 passed in

M.V.C.No.8219/2010 by the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Bangalore.

3. The claim petition filed seeking compensation

of Rs.25,00,000/- is allowed in part, awarding

compensation of Rs.12,000/- along with 6% interest

per annum. The liability is fixed on the Insurer/2nd

respondent. The insurer has not questioned the

liability.

4. The claimant being dis-satisfied with the

quantum of compensation is in appeal.

5. It is the case of the claimant that the

accident in question took place on 03-07-2010. It is

his further case that, soon after the accident, he was

shifted to R.L.Jalappa Hospital, Kolar. After obtaining

first aid treatment, he was shifted to St.John's Medical

College Hospital, Bangalore, on 04-07-2010 at 12.05

a.m. It is the further case of the claimant that he was

inpatient in the said hospital for three months and two

days as he has suffered a fracture of the tibia.

6. Claimant has produced voluminous documents

from the St.John's Medical College Hospital to

substantiate his contention that he has suffered

grievous injuries and he has undergone treatment for

three months and two days as an inpatient.

7. Respondent-Insurer has contested the claim

and has taken a stand that the accident has not taken

place and the injuries claimed to be suffered by the

claimant are not traceable to the accident which is

alleged to have taken place on 03-07-2010 and prays

for dismissal of the appeal.

8. After going through the evidence led on

behalf of the claimant as well as on half of the

respondent-Insurer as well as the injuries, the

Tribunal has concluded that the claimant has suffered

only minor injuries. Tribunal has held that the

documents produced on behalf of the claimant,

summoned from St.John's Medical College Hospital are

not admissible in evidence on the premise that the

Doctor who has treated the patient and the author of

the documents have not been examined. The Tribunal

has concluded that it is a case of minor injuries and

awarded the compensation of Rs.12,000/- along with

6% interest per annum from the date of petition till its

realization.

Since the insurer has not questioned the award, it can

be safely held that the accident has occurred and the

claimant has suffered injuries.

9. The next question that should be decided is,

Whether the claimant has suffered grievous injuries as

claimed by him and whether the treatment alleged to have

been given to the claimant in St. John's Medical College

Hospital is on account of injuries sustained by him in the

motor vehicle accident, which has taken place on

03-07-2010?

10. Ex.P15 is the document maintained by the

St. John's Medical College Hospital, which is the

document relating to the Medico-Legal Register. The

document is signed by Dr Javed, Senior CMO/RMO.

The Tribunal has discarded the documents summoned

from the St.John's Medical College Hospital, on the

ground that, the Doctor who has treated the claimant

in the said hospital is not examined. There is a

serious dispute regarding the authenticity of this

document. However, on the technical ground that the

author of the document is not examined, the claim

relating to grievous injury and treatment in St. John's

hospital is rejected. It is not conclusive finding of the

tribunal that the claimant has not taken any treatment

in the said hospital. The document at Ex.P15 reveals

the road traffic accident. If the same is accepted, it

will go a long way in coming to the conclusion about

the cause of injury.

11. Under these circumstances, this Court is of

the view that an opportunity is to be given to the

claimant to examine the author of the document at

Ex. P 15. In addition, the claimant may also examine

any person from the St. John's Hospital Bangalore

more particularly the persons who are acquainted with

the documents, namely, the Medico-Legal Register at

Ex.P.15 and other related documents summoned from

St. John's Medical College Hospital, Bangalore.

12. Under these circumstances, this Court is of

the view that the impugned judgment and award have

to be set aside and the matter is to be remitted to the

jurisdictional Tribunal to consider the evidence of the

claimant if he chooses to adduce to prove the

documents summoned from the St.John's Medical

College Hospital, Bangalore. Hence, the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part and remanded.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed

by the Tribunal in MVC No.8219/2010 on 18-01-2013

is set aside except for the portion of the judgment and

the award, fastening the liability of Rs. 12000=00 and

interest. The matter stands remitted to the Tribunal.

(iii) It is also made clear that since the insurer

has not questioned the finding relating to the accident

and minor injuries sustained by the claimant; it is not

open to the insurer to contend that the accident has

not taken place.

(iv) The matter is remitted to the Tribunal only

for the limited purpose to decide whether the

documents summoned and marked by the claimant in

support of his claim, relating to injuries sustained by

him in the accident which has taken place on 03-07-

2010 or not.

(v) If the documents summoned and marked by

the claimant are held to be the proof of injuries to the

claimant resulting from the accident dated

03.07.2010, then the Tribunal shall assess the

compensation in accordance with the law.

(vi) Since the matter is of the year 2010, the

parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 01-08-

2022 without awaiting for notice from the Tribunal.

(vii) Since the insurer has admitted the

coverage, the presence of the first respondent is not

required before the tribunal.

(viii) Registry to return the records to the

Tribunal forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

TSN*