Karnataka High Court
Sri Raghavendra Hegde vs Sri Suresh Kulal on 23 June, 2022
Author: H. T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H. T. Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.2088 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN
SRI RAGHAVENDRA HEGDE
S/O MANJUNATH HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/O H NO.66, DEVASTHANAKERI
VANDOOR, HONNAVARA-581011.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. MADHU R., ADV. FOR
SRI.K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.)
AND
1. SRI SURESH KULAL
S/O SADANANDA KULAL
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O LAXMI KRUPA
DOOPADAKATTE
HARIKHANDIGE, PERDOOR POST
UDUPI TALUK.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
2ND FLOOR, SRI LAXMI
2
NARASIMHA COMPLEX
OPP:KSRTC DEPOT, NH-66
KUNDAPURA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DATED: 23.06.2022)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
03/03/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.207/2016, ON THE
FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI (SITTING AT
KUNDAPURA), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS 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 dated 3.3.2018 passed by MACT, Udupi (sitting at Kundapura) in MVC 207/2016. 3
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 3.10.2015 when the claimant was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-21-L-1361 from Mangalore towards NITK side, near Mukka Corporation Bank, at that time, tempo bearing registration No.KA-20-C-9282 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he 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
4. On service of notice, the respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied.
The respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-parte.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and Dr.Sandeep Navada was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, 5 as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.530,510/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant has contended that claimant was aged about 23 years at the time of the accident and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. and Rs.150/- per day by working as sales executive, but the Tribunal has assessed the income as merely as Rs.9,000/- p.m. As per wound certificate, he has sustained displaced comminuted fracture shaft of right humerus, undisplaced fracture medial epicondyle, lacerated wound over right palm, lacerated wound over left knee and right knee. PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered 6 disability of 36% to upper limb. Due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 10 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. He has produced medial bills at Ex.P5. Considering the nature of injuries, the overall 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 sustained by the claimant are minor in nature. Even though claimant claims that he was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. and Rs.150/- per day by working as sales executive, except producing the salary certificate, he has not produced any documents to establish the same and moreover, he has not examined the author of the salary certificate. Hence, 7 the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income as Rs.9,000/- p.m. The disability stated by the doctor at 36% to upper limb will not affect his day to day activities. Considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable compensation and it does not call for interference. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained displaced comminuted fracture shaft of right humerus, undisplaced fracture medial epicondyle, lacerated wound over right palm, lacerated wound 8 over left knee and right knee. PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 36% to upper limb. Due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 10 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. He has produced medial bills at Ex.P5. Therefore, considering the age and avocation of the claimant and considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, I am inclined to award compensation of Rs.60,000/- in addition to compensation of Rs.5,30,510/- awarded by the Tribunal.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,90,510/-.
9
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the 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.
In view of the order dated 23.6.2022 passed by this Court, the claimant is not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 271 days in filing the appeal.
Sd/-
JUDGE DM