Sri Praveena @ Praveenakumara vs Sri Rajegowda
2022 Latest Caselaw 7793 Kant

                        1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022

                     BEFORE

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

        MFA No.7526 OF 2018 (MV - I)

BETWEEN:

SRI. PRAVEENA @ PRAVEENAKUMARA,
S/O THIRUMALEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/O KATTEHALLI VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT- 573 201.
                                    ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.H.J.ANANDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   SRI. RAJEGOWDA,
     S/O LATE KALEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
     R/O BELAVADI VILLAGE AND POST,
     ARAKALAGUD TALUK,
     HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 112.

2.   THE MANAGER,
     UNIVERSEL SOMPO GENERAL
     INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     SHOP NO.217/A,
     3RD FLOOR, KVV SAMRAT,
     3RD MAIN, OUTER RING ROAD,
                           2



     KASTURI NAGARA,
     BENGALURU - 560 043.
                                ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
    NOTICE TO R1 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1)
OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 15/06/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.418/2016,
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL
MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 15.06.2018 passed

by Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T. at

Hassan (hereinafter after referred to as 'Tribunal') in

MVC No.418/2016, whereby the Tribunal has granted

compensation of Rs.40,000/- along with interest at

the rate of 6% p.a.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 24.04.2015 he along with his

friend Raju were proceeding on bike bearing

Reg.No.KA-13-W-6876 towards his Kittanekere

village. At that time, the driver of the car bearing

Reg.No.KA-13-N-3247 came from opposite direction in

rash and negligent manner and dashed to the

motorcycle. Due to the impact, they fell down and

suffered injuries. Immediately, thereafter he was

shifted to the hospital.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section

166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded

that he had 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.1

appeared through counsel but he has not filed any

objections. The respondent No.2 - Insurance

Company appeared through its counsel and filed

objections denying the entire petition averments

regarding age, occupation and income of the

petitioner as well as occurrence of accident. Hence,

he sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded the evidence. The claimant examined

himself as PW-2 and Dr.Ravindra was examined as

PW-3 and got exhibited documents, namely, Ex.P1 to

Ex.P.27 The respondents have not examined any

witnesses.

6. The learned counsel for the claimant claims

that due to the accident the claimant has suffered

grievous injury and he was inpatient for a period of six

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. Considering the

same, the 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 suffered by the claimant are minor in nature.

Considering the injuries suffered by the claimant, the

overall 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 that

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

offending vehicle by its driver. Due to the accident,

the claimant has suffered following injures:

"1) lacerated wound noticed in upper lip involving labial vestibule.

2) # fracture of the premaxilarry bone involving upper central incisors.

3) fracture of the upper and central and lateral incisors."

10. The claimant claims that he was an

inpatient for a period of 06 days. Due to the accident,

the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and has

suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the

evidence of doctor and the wound certificate, I am of

the opinion that, it would be just and proper if a sum

of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the claimant in addition

to the compensation that has been awarded by the

Tribunal.

11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in

part.

The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal

is modified.

The claimant is entitled to another sum of

Rs.40,000/- in addition to the compensation that has

been awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at

the rate of 6% p.a.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the enhance 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.

The Tribunal is directed to release the

compensation amount along with interest in favour of

the claimant, after due verification.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SSB