K E Basavarajappa vs H Chandrappa on 9 January, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 10]

Karnataka High Court

K E Basavarajappa vs H Chandrappa on 9 January, 2012

MFA N0.1822/2010 is filed under seetioiif:i%3(ifi'i 'of
Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment--"aiidfAWard d_at'ed 

02.02.2010 passed in MVC No.88/2009 on the «fi1e'=0'f Civil? 

Judge (Sr.Dn.) & MACT, Holalkere', partly allowing' "C.i_aim."'
Petition for compensation and seeking enh'anceIne*nt'*,of
compensation.    V  A    

MFA No.2846/2010 is filed' under. Section 173(1) of
Motor Vehicles Act, against the J'u.dgn1ent'"an.d Award dated
02.02.2010 passed in'1\/[VC No.:.88/._20V(')9 on the file of Civil
Judge (Sr.Dn.) & MACT, 'Ho1alke1r<;:, a'w.arud'ing a compensation
of Rs.55,660/-- with interest  ..p60/6"vVP;Aj,----*'from the date of
petition till the .da;te-.of r§ea1iZation;'~.,2"--.._ '  '

These A,ppea'{s _co~rning_on__foi_r' Final' Hearing this day, the
Court deliveredthe"Vfo'11o\Xiii'1vg§'=--__-- ' 

The 0 appe11ant"" has""ie--fiied MFA No.1822/2010 seeking

enhancement of , the compensation for the injuries sustained

 iri_'a"n :"'accid.ent, whereas the insurer has filed MFA

 the occurrence of the accident and

the arnount' er compensation granted.

W



2. The facts relevant for the purpose of  are

as under:

The parties are referred to  pe-rltheiar Vranklbiegfori-so the"

Tribunal, for the purpose of conxgenierlcel'.

The appellant in the 'r1rs£"c'j';j§p¢ai  petitioner,
whereas the appellant    the respondent
No.2 ~ insurer. _   while he was going
by walk on near Chowdarnma
Temple,   on 14.10.2008 at about
6.00   Cycle bearing registration
 Motor Cycle in a rash and

negligent_inanner"and'  the petitioner due to which he

 .sustained"injuries.  was taken to the hospital, treated for

'the  v"Ie:'_iclaims to have suffered disability and in the

circu.n1sta;nce*s'sought for compensation on all the heads.

  A'  insurer contested the claim after seeking leave of

  Court under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It

>4



denied the involvement of the offending 

accident, its liability and also the .quantumV"oIf'cloniperisation. 

claimed as highly exorbitant and  

enquiry, the petitioner was as _  
P.W.2 and in their evidence  documents
Exs.P~l to P--l2, whe1;e_as_ theiires-pondents Heilcamined two
witnesses, R.Ws.l_  the documents
EXs.R--l to R--E»'.   the counsel for
the parties "the material on record,
held actionable} onlwthvez part of the rider of the
Motor and'Ell,/ﬁntéﬁ...Icolmpensation of Rs.41.000/-- for

pain, suffering  agony, Rs.l2,660/-- for loss of

.«vv.ameni5tie:si_lA,' Rs.2,AO'OO_/_:.vas miscellaneous expenses, in all it

A":_pgrari-ted sum of Rs.55,660/-- with interest at 6%. The

petitioner 'preferred appeal in MFA No. 1822/2010 seeking

_enhai1cement"', whereas the insurer has filed MFA

 challenging the involvement of the vehicle in

  accident, liability and the compensation awarded.

bé



4. I have heard the learned counsel for  _
5. The points that arise for my c.onsidera«tio-:11   

1. Whether the petiti_on_er   
sustained injuries  Motorlfehfeicle
accident  at
6.00 p.m., duel'to-.irash:.ti':aindvnegligent
riding" of :the"::V¥1no'tof»rV.  bearing
dKAsadi6/R?71l85 by the
   *

2. l"V'.7hetherfi.;"the,A'petiti'oner is entitled to enl1ancf'ed::'zjorripensation, if so to what « Vextlent'? V'

6.' VtTbe't:'acvcident in question is said to have occurred on 6.00 p.m.. by the rash and negligent riding of v_th'et':'»/Ilotor Cycle bearing No.KA-16 / R--7l85 by the ll">-'..__'1'-espondent No.1. To prove this accident, except the produced by the petitioner and his oral evidence, V""l..._1W"the%re is no other materials placed on record. It is well M'-

established principle of law that proof of an be beyond reasonable doubt, b1;:t""'undterlp ht'; preponderance of probabilities. lllto_lth.,e the accident occurred on certified copy of the FIR and it wasV___lod:ged_g petitioner on 18.10.2008 in which ._14.10.2008 in the evening at about £5.00 algo1'iglWl'ith*V"one Prabhu were proceeding by that time the bike bearing lv§~7ll 85 came from the opposite'i'dire'ct:i:on,lrid'de:n» a rashlland negligent manner and hit him he injuries and was admitted to the He claims that the owner of the un'dertool{"tvo_..t.reat the petitioner at his expenses and ":_1at:er* did not bear the expenses and he was complaint of the accident. Ex.P--4 is the

--certifi"ed of the scene of occurrence and no incriminating lllgprnateréialvvis found in the mahazar. EXP-5 is the Motor Vehicle 1_6.}R--7l85 and no damage was found to the Vehicle. The ._lns_lp'ector's report of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA- BL injury certificate has been produced at Ex.P--6 and so far as history of the accident is concerned, except stating, as RTA on 14.10.2008 at 6.00 pm., no particuiarsi furnished in the injury certificate,,....The produced the case sheet with regard hospital except the injury certifi.'c'ate referred._

7. The insurer has JEx.R~2, the case sheet pertaining to petitioner in the hospital. He" R.W.2, who treated him. 1: the petitioner was adrriittediﬂin -14.10.2008 at 7.30 pm. His name hasibeen 'rnenti'oned000therein and the history of the incident is umentioned as under:

it «h"'RTA on 14.10.2008 at 00.00 p.m., VMarada ofﬁce, the victim was htrayelling in the bike No.KA--16/J--8788 and when a cow came on the road and fell down.

H) in the hospital. He also states that he did not take the signature of the petitioner on the case sheet and_.'h..e'««_further states that it is either the injured or the accompanies him would be the,..persori',W'wh'g.

information of the accident. As could be "seen certiﬁcate and the injury over the forehead, injury l\Io.2jqjis--uthe'cut lacerated wound on the nose, injury No.3 is left knee, injury No.4 is the cut" lacerated' right thumb and injury No.5 the_.nose tip and the x--ray reveal could be seen from the injury had not sustained such a severe blow ar.1d"eve'n t-he'~~--case sheet does not reveal that at 'thg t,j':§f';.e 1y:vj1.:_3n h'e"'was admitted in the hospital he was case sheet, Ex.R--2 also reveals that the petitioner alcohol, there was positive smell, he was

-. _disorient'ed7~and was not in a position to handle the bike. The 2eariiestginforination of the accident is by an accident due to of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-16 /J-8788, bé .1 accident. Therefore, considering the facts on case sheet reveals the earliest inforrnation.of involvement of a different vehicle, I do not think that;the'rnat'e--rialHplaced H on record is sufficient to proyethe 4inyolvemen.t.l:of the yehicle alleged by the petitioner in thatto make a false claim for petitioner subsequently has taken' circumstances and by falsely though he did not suffer any the said vehicle made a false Iglence this Court is of the View that the not justified in holding that an accident occurredV"d_u'e.:to. rash and negligent driving. 11'. "t*-So:,,fa_r'"a:s the Quantum of compensation is concerned, _li'ribun,ai4lhasgawarded a sum of Rs.4l,OOO/- for pain and suffe.r_ing'..-~'lis.All2,66O/-- towards loss of amenities and Rs.2,OOQ/fT~ on miscellaneous heads. It has not taken into '~c'cnsfi'deration the loss of income during the period of 4'"'~.___""l:"treatment and also the disability that the appellant has V4

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

K E Basavarajappa vs H Chandrappa on 9 January, 2012