Karnataka High Court
Sri Santhosh vs H P Lokesh on 6 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31230
MFA No. 1698 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA NO. 1698 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI SANTHOSH
S/O RAJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT DODDA BEKANAHALLI
KATTAYA HOBLI
HASSAN TALUK AND DIST ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY G V., ADV.)
AND:
1. H P LOKESH
S/O H R PUTTEGOWDA, AGED MAJOR
R/AT BEHIND GOPALSWAMY VATARA
HASSAN-573 201
2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
MANJUNATH COMPLEX, BUS STAND ROAD
HASSAN-573 201 ...RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by
(BY SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV. FOR R2;
PRAJWAL A
R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.2.2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.1088/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING
OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-2, MACT, HASSAN, DISMISSING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31230
MFA No. 1698 of 2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the petitioner has challenged the
judgment and award dated 25.02.2012 passed in
M.V.C.No.1088/2007 by the Presiding Officer, Fast
Track Court-II and MACT, Hassan ('the Tribunal' for
short).
2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the
parties shall be referred to as per their status before
the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are, on 24.09.2006 at
about 9.15 p.m. on Hassan-Kabbathi Road, near
Chikkabhaganahally village, while the petitioner was
traveling in the autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-13-
7318, which was capsized due to rash and negligent
driving by its driver. As a result, he suffered dislocation
of his left shoulder and fracture of left clavicle bone, he
was treated at SC hospital Hassan for 10 days under
hospitalization. After taking treatment, the petitioner
has approached the Tribunal for grant of compensation
NC: 2024:KHC:31230
of Rs.5,00,000/-. Claim was opposed by the Insurance
Company. The Tribunal after taking the evidence and
hearing on both the sides, dismissed the claim petition.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this
Court on various grounds.
4. Heard the arguments of Sri. Narasimha Murthy
G.V., learned Counsel for the petitioner and
Sri.A.N.Krishna Swamy, learned counsel for the
insurance company.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that in order to explain the accident, the
petitioner has produced all the relevant records before
the Tribunal. For the reason of delay in filing the
complaint and omission on the part of the medical
officer in not mentioning the history of the accident in
the wound certificate, the Tribunal has dismissed the
claim petition. The petitioner is a poor person, has
suffered dislocation and fracture, and he was under
hospitalization and therefore, there is delay in filing the
NC: 2024:KHC:31230
complaint. After discharge and taking some rest, he
filed the complaint on 10.11.2006 and thereafter FIR
came to be registered. The wound certificate at Ex.P12
points out the injuries sustained and IMV report as well
as seizure panchanama point out the accident. He
being a poor person, is not able to examine any
witnesses. For non-examination of medical officer, the
claim came to be dismissed and sought for assessment
of compensation.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance
company has contended that the accident took place
on 24.09.2006, complaint was filed on 10.10.2006. No
evidence to show that the petitioner was inpatient in
the hospital and financial difficulty is not a ground to
condone the delay in filing the complaint and even IMV
report discloses that there are no visible damages are
noticed and the history of accident. The Tribunal has
rightly dismissed the claim and has supported the
impugned judgment.
NC: 2024:KHC:31230
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on behalf of the parties and
perused the records.
8. The material on record did point out that there
was an accident on 24.09.2006 at 9.15 p.m. involving
the autorikshaw bearing Regn.No.KA-13-7318 in which
the petitioner was the inmate. The petitioner was
treated at SC hospital, Hassan on 25.09.2006 and the
history furnished points out that there was an incident
at 9-15 p.m. on 24.09.2006. The nature of injuries
certainly require hospitalization, there is no reason to
disbelieve the evidence of the petitioner that he was
under hospitalization for 10 days. Autorikshaw was
seized and was subjected to motor vehicles inspection
and Ex.P4-IMV Report clearly points out that there are
no visible damages. It is also stated that the
autorikshaw was turtled on the road. Under such
circumstances, visible damages cannot be expected.
NC: 2024:KHC:31230
9. Under Ex.P3 indicates that spot mahazar was
conducted on 10.10.2006 and the police have issued
the notice to the petitioner as required under Section
32 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, 'M.V.Act')
narrating the accident in question and the injuries
sustained by him in the accident. The material on
record is sufficient to accept the accident in question
and the reason assigned by the Tribunal is not
acceptable. Hence, the petitioner is able to explain the
accident and he being the victim of the accident is
entitled to claim the compensation. The petitioner has
not examined the treated doctor nor produced any
disability certificate and no explanation is offered to
show that how the injuries affected in his future.
10. Since the accident is of the year 2006,
instead of assessing the compensation under different
heads, it is a fit case for assessing compensation
globally instead of remanding the matter to the
Tribunal. Facts and circumstances of the case explains
NC: 2024:KHC:31230
that a global compensation of Rs.25,000/- will suffice
and it will be just compensation. Hence, appeal merits
consideration, in the result, the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal filed by the petitioner is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award is set
aside;
(iii) The claim petition filed under Section 166 of
the M.V.Act is hereby allowed;
(iv) The petitioner would be entitled to
compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date
of petition till deposit;
(v) Both the respondents are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation and
the insurance company shall deposit the
compensation with interest within eight
weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this judgment.
SD/-
(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA)
JUDGE
MKM
