Dhanukumar S R @ Dhanu vs S R Girish
2022 Latest Caselaw 9953 Kant

                          1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                        BEFORE

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

              MFA No.8388 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN:

DHANUKUMAR S R @ DHANU
S/O RUDRAIAH AGED 22 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST AND STUDENT
R/O SHETTYHALLI VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
R/O DUMMI VILLAGE
HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526.
                                         ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA, ADV. )

AND:

1.    S R GIRISH
      S/O LATE S RUDRAPPA
      AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS
      R/O DHAVALAGIRI EXTENSION
      MALAPPANAHATTI ROAD
      CHITRADURGA TOWN-577 501.

2.    THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
      NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
      OPP BAPUJI AUDITORIUM
      MCC-B BLOCK,
      DAVANAGERE-577 001.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ PATIL, ADV. FOR R2:
    NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
                                2




     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT   AGAINST     THE    JUDGMENT    AND    AWARD
DATED.20.04.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 248/2017 ON THE
FILE OF    THE SENIOR      CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,
HOLALKERE, 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 20.04.2019 passed

by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holalkere in MVC

No.248/2017.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 02.11.2016 at about 10.45

P.M., the claimant along with another traveling on the

motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-17/EU-8894

from Shettihally to Holalkere Town. When they

reached near on NH-13 road, near Dogganal Gate at

Holalkere Taluk, the driver of the Madhuri Bus bearing

Registration No.KA-16/B-7693 drove the same in a

rash and negligent manner without observing the

traffic rules and regulations dashed to the back

portion of the claimant's motorcycle. 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. 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 claimant himself was

examined as PW-1 and got exhibited documents

namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. On behalf of the

respondents, two witnesses were examined as RW-1

and RW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1

to Ex.R5. 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.65,493/- 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 due to the accident, the claimant has

suffered three injuries. He was inpatient in the

hospital for a period of 4 days. He has spent more

than Rs.28,493/- for medical expenses. He has

suffered lot of pain during the treatment. The

compensation of Rs.65,493/- granted 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 three

injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature.

He was inpatient in the hospital only for a period of

4 days. He has not examined the doctor. Therefore,

considering the documents available on record and

considering the evidence of PW-1, the Tribunal has

granted just and reasonable compensation. 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 accident, the claimant sustained fracture

of 3rd and 4th finger. He has not examined the doctor

and he was inpatient in the hospital for a period of 4

days. He has spent more than Rs.28,493/- for medical

expenses. Therefore, considering the evidence of

PW-1, considering the medical bills and the injuries

suffered by the claimant, I am of the opinion that in

addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal,

another Rs.85,000/- can be awarded without 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.1,50,493/- against Rs.65,493/- awarded by

the Tribunal.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the compensation amount along with interest at 6%

per annum 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/-