Kum Lavanya vs Sri Munishamappa
2024 Latest Caselaw 19132 Kant

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 19132 Kant
Judgement Date : 31 July, 2024

Karnataka High Court

Kum Lavanya vs Sri Munishamappa on 31 July, 2024

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                            -1-
                                                       NC: 2024:KHC:30304
                                                      MFA No. 492 of 2022




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024

                                         BEFORE
                     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 492 OF 2022 (MV-I)
                BETWEEN:

                      KUM. LAVANYA,
                      D/O RAMACHANDRA,
                      AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
                      RESIDING AT: KAMBADAHALLI VILLAGE,
                      MELUR POST, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
                      CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 102.
                                                             ...APPELLANT
                (BY SRI B. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE)
                AND:

                1.    SRI MUNISHAMAPPA,
                      S/O DASAPPA, MAJOR,
                      (AGE OF R1 NOT KNOWN TO APPELLANT),
                      R/AT: HANDIGANGALA VILLAGE,
                      SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
                      CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 102.
Digitally
signed by       2.    MR. CHANDRA SHEKAR D.L.,
YAMUNA K L            S/O. LAKSHMIPATHI D.A., MAJOR,
Location:             (AGE OF R2 NOT KNOWN TO APPELLANT),
High Court of         NO.97, DEVAGAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
Karnataka             SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
                      CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 104.
                3.    THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
                      COMPANY LTD., T.P. HUB,
                      5TH FLOOR, KRISHIBHAVAN,
                      HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R.ROAD,
                      BENGALURU - 560 001, BY ITS MANAGER.
                                                          ...RESPONDENTS
                (BY SMT. MANJULA N. TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
                    R1 AND R2 - SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DISPENSED
                    VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 13.03.2023)
                              -2-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC:30304
                                       MFA No. 492 of 2022




     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.09.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO.7047/2019 BY THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU CITY.
    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR


                     ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant

challenging the judgment and award dated 27.09.2021

passed in MVC.No.7047/2019 on the file of the Motor

Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru City (for

short 'the tribunal'). This appeal is founded on the premise

of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the

tribunal.

2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per

their status before the tribunal.

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

parties and perused the material placed before the Court.

NC: 2024:KHC:30304

4. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of

Rs.4,69,750/- with interest at 7% per annum and directed

the respondent - Insurance Company to pay the

compensation.

5. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel

for the appellant-claimant that the Tribunal has committed

an error in not awarding suitable compensation and has

not considered the magnitude of injuries for calculating the

disability and has committed an error in awarding

compensation under other heads.

5.1 It is also contended that due to non-production

of certain documents, which were not available to the

claimant, the compensation awarded is on the lower side

and it is contended that subsequent to the judgment

rendered by the Tribunal, the claimant has undergone

treatment due to the injuries suffered in the accident and

incurred financial expenditure, for which the claimant has

filed an application in I.A.No.1/2024 dated 27.05.2024 for

NC: 2024:KHC:30304

production of additional documents before this Court with

the list of documents.

5.2 It is further contended by the learned counsel for

appellant-claimant that the claimant was aged 16 years as

on the date of occurrence of accident. Due to the accident

and the injuries suffered, the disability sustained by the

claimant is a permanent physical disability, which caused

an enormous amount of loss, not only a financial loss, but

also a physical disability and dented her future, including

her marriage prospects and expectancy of life. Hence, the

claimant is before this Court seeking to enhance the

compensation by considering the additional documents

produced before this Court vide I.A.No.1/2024 dated

27.05.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel representing the

Insurance Company vehemently sustains the judgment

and award passed by the Tribunal on the ground that just

and reasonable compensation has been awarded taking

into consideration all the materials placed before the

NC: 2024:KHC:30304

Tribunal. Therefore, this Court need not interfere with the

well considered award.

6.1 She further contends that the Tribunal has

considered the material placed by the claimant and has

assessed the disability on the basis of evidence adduced

by the parties and the Doctor-PW.2. Therefore, the

disability assessed by the Doctor-PW.2 at 13% to the

whole body from left lower limb is sustainable, the same

cannot be disturbed by this Court, as no material is placed

to award any higher compensation or increase the

percentage of disability. However, she contends that the

additional documents produced by the claimant before this

Court are new materials, seeking enhancement of

compensation on the additional documents, which will

have to be verified and to that extent, the claimant or the

Doctor-PW.2 would have to be further cross-examined on

the aspect of additional documents produced by the

claimant.

NC: 2024:KHC:30304

7. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties,

in view of the additional documents produced by the

claimant dated 27.05.2024 relying on several documents

which are placed by virtue of this application, the matter

will have to be remanded back to the Tribunal for

consideration of these documents and an opportunity

would have to be provided to the respondents to

controvert the documents which are produced after

disposal of the claim petition and after a delay of almost

three years.

8. Under these circumstance, I pass the following.


                              ORDER

  i)      The appeal is disposed of.

  ii)     The    matter      is   remanded      back   to     the

          jurisdictional     Tribunal    to     consider      the

          additional    documents       produced       by     the

          claimant         vide     I.A.No.1/2024           dated

          27.05.2024.

                                       NC: 2024:KHC:30304

iii) The Tribunal shall provide an opportunity to

the claimant as well as the respondents to

adduce evidence on the basis of the additional

documents produced.

iv) Respondents shall be at liberty to cross-

examine the claimant if any evidence is

adduced.

v) The Tribunal shall decide the matter with

regard to additional documents alone without

going into other aspects which has already

been decided and provide opinion on the

additional documents within a period of three