Sri Dannjayamurthy vs Praveen Kumar
2024 Latest Caselaw 5575 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri Dannjayamurthy vs Praveen Kumar on 22 February, 2024

Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

                                                         -1-
                                                                  NC: 2024:KHC:7902
                                                               MFA No. 2225 of 2017




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                 DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                                   BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
                          MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2225 OF 2017(MV-I)
                          BETWEEN:

                                SRI. DANNJAYAMURTHY,
                                S/O CHANDRASHEKARAIAH,
                                AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
                                OCC-NIL,
                                (BEFORE COCONUT BUSINESS)
                                RES.113, MARUTHINAGAR,
                                MAGADI ROAD,
                                BANGALORE - 85.
                                                                       ...APPELLANT
                          (BY SMT. UMADEVAMMA M.C., ADVOCATE)
                          AND:

                          1.    PRAVEEN KUMAR,
                                S/O CHANNABASAVAIAH,
                                AGE-MAJOR,
                                RES; BARADELE PALYA,
Digitally signed by JAI         HULIYAR HOBLI,
JYOTHI J
Location: HIGH COURT
                                C.N. HALLI TQ,
OF KARNATAKA                    TUMKUR DIST - 572 101.

                          2.    THE MANAGER,
                                UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
                                KRUSHI BHAVAN,
                                NEAR CORPORATION,
                                BANGALORE - 560 001.
                                                                   ...RESPONDENTS

                          (BY SRI. S. KRISHNA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
                              VIDE ORDER DATED 06.12.2017, NOTICE TO
                              R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
                                -2-
                                           NC: 2024:KHC:7902
                                       MFA No. 2225 of 2017




     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.936/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES (SCCH-16) BANGALORE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the

judgment and award dated 02.09.2016 passed by the

Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Bengaluru (SCCH-16), in MVC No.936/2014, seeking

enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. The factum of accident, injuries sustained by the

claimant and coverage of insurance are not in dispute.

3. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused

the records.

4. In the present case, the Tribunal has awarded

compensation as under:

1 Towards pain and suffering Rs.60,000/- 2 Towards attendant charges, extra Rs.16,000/-

NC: 2024:KHC:7902

nutritious food and conveyance expenses 3 Towards medical expenses Rs.5,38,834/- 4 Towards loss of income during Rs.35,000/-

laid up period 5 Towards loss of income due to -

permanent disability

6. Towards loss of future amenities Rs.30,000/-

and happiness

7. Towards future medical expenses Rs.20,000/-

Total Rs.6,99,834/-

5. In the present case, from the medical evidence on

record, it is proved that the claimant had sustained

traumatic cervical cord injury, cervical cord stenosis, right

clavicular fracture.

6. It is submitted that above said injuries are

significant one affecting the earning capacity of the

claimant as the disability sustained by the claimant is

enormous. But it is stated that doctor is not examined in

support of proving what percentage of disability the

claimant has sustained. If the appellant - claimant has

really sustained severe disability and awarding

compensation is not adequate with proportionate to the

NC: 2024:KHC:7902

disability sustained, then it would be improper and

unjustified. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries

sustained and the claimant is doing coconut business, the

percentage of disability can be assessed with expert

evidence by examining the doctor. But the doctor is not

examined before the Tribunal. Therefore, it is just and

proper to give one more opportunity for the appellant -

claimant to examine the doctor in order to assess the

percentage of disability sustained by the claimant. In view

of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of

the view to remand the case to the Tribunal for fresh

adjudication.

7. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

i. The appeal is hereby allowed.

ii. The judgment and award passed in MVC

No.936/2014 dated 02.09.2016 by the Court of

Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-16) is hereby set

NC: 2024:KHC:7902

aside and remanded to the Tribunal for fresh

adjudication.

iii. The appellant - claimant is given liberty to

examine the doctor.

iv. Both the parties shall appear before the

Tribunal on 21.03.2024 and the Tribunal is

directed to dispose of the petition within a

period of nine months from 21.03.2024.

v. Both the parties are directed to co-operate with

the Tribunal for early disposal.

      vi.    No order as to costs.




                                              Sd/-
                                             JUDGE




MH/-

CT:SNN