Karnataka High Court
N Venkatesh Babu vs Shivakumar R on 28 February, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8249
MFA No. 881 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 881 OF 2016 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
DO-13, YATHIRAJA MUTT BUILDING,
NO.199, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND MAIN, SAMPIGE ROAD,
NEAR 11TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
NO.44/45, 4TH FLOOR, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 025,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.P.B.RAJU., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N
Location: HIGH
1. SRI.N.VENKATESH BABU,
COURT OF S/O. LATE D.NARAYANAPPA,
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SUPPLIER OF MINERAL
RAWAYBIRIUL,
R/AT #314, 2ND 'G' CROSS,
3RD STAGE, 3RD CROSS,
BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 79.
2. SHIVAKUMAR.R
S/O RAMA KRISHNA.H,
MAJOR,
RIDER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8249
MFA No. 881 of 2016
BEARING NO.KA-52-H-3517,
R/AT #594, 7TH CORSS, 2ND STAGE,
MASEEDHI ROAD, KANTEERAVA NAGAR,
NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 096.
3. KEMPANNA S/O REVANNA,
MAJOR,
OWNER OF THE MOTORCYCLE,
BEARING NO.KA-52-H-3517,
R/O #31, SUBRAMANYA NAGAR,
THYUAMAGONDLU, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE - 23.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R.SHASHIDHARA., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 AND 3 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:07.02.2015
PASSED IN MVC NO.6723/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT,
BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,96,546/-
WITH INTEREST @6 % P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION, TILL
DEPOSIT.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.P.B.Raju., learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri.R.Shashidhara., learned counsel for respondent No.1 have
appeared in person.
NC: 2024:KHC:8249
Notice to respondents was ordered on 25.02.2016. A
perusal of the office note depicts that respondents 2 and 3 are
served and unrepresented. They have neither engaged the
services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in
person.
Though the appeal is listed today for admission, with the
consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, it is heard
finally.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
It is the case of the claimant that on the 16th day of May
2012 at about 12:45 pm., he was crossing the ring-road to
reach I.B.M office for purchase of bond certificate. At that time,
the rider of a motorcycle came from Sanar F.T.I circle to
C.M.I.T Tumkur Road (NH4) in a rash and negligent manner
without observing traffic rules and regulations and hit against
the claimant. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained
grievous injuries and simple injuries all over the body.
Immediately, he was shifted to Raksha Hospital for first aid
treatment in an ambulance. Later on, he was shifted to Hosmat
NC: 2024:KHC:8249
Hospital for further treatment. Wherein he was operated by
implanting steel rod. It is said that on account of the injuries
sustained by him, he is unable to walk and sit properly and
cannot do his daily work. Contending that the accident occurred
due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the
motorcycle, he filed the claim petition seeking compensation.
In response to the notice, respondents 1 & 2 remained
absent, hence they were placed ex-parte. The third respondent
Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed
written statement. The Insurance Company admitted the
issuance of the insurance policy in respect of motorcycle
bearing Registration No.KA-52-H-3517 and the liability is
subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The
Insurance Company contended that the rider of the motorcycle
did not possess a valid effective Driving License at the time of
the accident. Among other grounds it prayed for the dismissal
of the claim petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
issues. The claimant examined himself as PW1 and a doctor by
name Chetan.A was examined as PW2 and got marked the
NC: 2024:KHC:8249
documents. The respondents neither adduced evidence nor got
marked the documents. The Tribunal vide Judgment
dated:07.02.2015 allowed the petition in part. It is this
Judgment that is called into question in this appeal on several
grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of appeal.
3. Sri.P.B.Raju., learned counsel for the appellant in
presenting his arguments vehemently contends that the
Tribunal has erroneously calculated the medical bills leading to
an excess of Rs.83,380/- (Rupees Eighty Three Thousand Three
Hundred and Eighty only). He argued by saying that the
Medical bill expenses awarded by the MACT at Rs.2,11,546/-
(Rupees Two Lakh Eleven Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Six
only) is not the correct figure. Counsel therefore, submits that
appropriate order may be passed.
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective
parties and perused the appeal papers and also the records
with utmost care.
4. Learned counsel Sri.P.B.Raju., and Sri.R.Shashidhara.,
jointly submits that on verifying the records (Medical Bills), the
NC: 2024:KHC:8249
duplication is to the extent of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only). Hence, appropriate order may be passed.
The oral submission made on behalf of the learned
counsel is placed on record.
Taking note of the submission made by learned counsel,
the Judgment dated:07.02.2015 passed by the XXII Addl.
Small Causes Judge and Member MACT, Bengaluru in
M.V.C.No.6723/2012 in the present appeal is modified to the
extent of Medical bill Expenses holding that the claimant is
entitled to Rs.1,61,546/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty One
Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Six only).
In the connected appeal filed by the Claimant in
M.F.A.No.7425/2015, this Court has re-determined the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal and passed appropriate
Judgment.
5. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal allowed
in part.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
