Karnataka High Court
Arun J P vs Rajesh S on 17 February, 2017
Author: B.Manohar
Bench: B. Manohar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MANOHAR
M.F.A.NO.3282/2011 (MV)
BETWEEN:
ARUN J P
S/O K P SELVAM,
No. 1022/A, ARUNATHAYA,
LINGARAJAPURA, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST,
BANGALORE-84.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI N. VISHWANATH & ASSOCIATES, ADV.,)
AND:
1. RAJESH S.
S/O R SHIVANNA,
R/A No. 10, 15TH V CROSS,
8TH MAIN, MUTHYALANAGARA,
GOKULA POST,
BANGLAORE-54.
2. K C VITTAL
S/O K A CHINNAPPA,
MAIN ROAD, L N COLONY,
YESHWANTHPURA,
BANGALORE - 22.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NALEENA LOGON, ADV., FOR R-1,
APPEAL DISMISSED AGAINST R-2 V/O. DATED 04.09.2015)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:10.02.2011 PASSED IN
MVC NO.1165/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL
JUDGE, MACT., COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU,
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.1,72,250/- WITH
2
INTEREST AT 8% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
DEPOSIT IN COURT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Appellant is the owner of the vehicle. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated: 10.02.2011 made in MVC No.1165/2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle to compensate the claimant, has filed this appeal.
2. Respondent No.1 herein filed the claim petition contending that on 21.12.2009 at about 4.30 p.m., while he was proceeding in a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-04-EP-9784 within the jurisdiction of Yeshawanthapura Traffic Police Station, at that time, a Kinetic Honda bearing registration No.KA-03-R-6798 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner with a high speed dashed against the claimant's motorcycle. Due to that, claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, 3 he was shifted to the Hospital for treatment. Prior to the accident he was working as Apprentice Trainee in BEL factory and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. In view of the injuries sustained, he is permanently disabled to attend to his regular work. Hence, he has sought for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.
3. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondent No.1 entered appearance and denied the entire averments made by the claimant and also contended that the vehicle in question stands in the name of one K.C.Vittal S/o K.A.Chinnappa. Hence, he is not liable to compensate the claimant. In spite of service of the notice, respondent No.2 remained unrepresented and he was placed exparte before the Tribunal.
4. The claimant in order to prove his case examined himself as PW1 and got marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.12. On behalf of respondent No.1, he examined himself as RW.1 and Assistant Regional Traffic Officer was examined as RW.2 and got marked documents as Exs.R.1 to R.11.
4
5. The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, taking into consideration the IMV report, Spot sketch, Spot Panchanama, copy of the complaint and charge sheet held that due to the actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the Kinetic Honda, the accident has occurred and the claimant is entitled for the compensation.
6. With regard to the quantum of compensation, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained the following injuries:
i) Left posterior temporal contusion with archonoid haemorrhage
ii) Traumatic avulsion of left pinna He has taken treatment at M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein, CT Brain Plain was done and found tentorial SAH with diffuse cerebral oedema. The claimant has not examined the Doctor who treated him, to prove the disability sustained by him. In view of that, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities and 5 Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income during laid-up period, Rs.92,250/- towards medical expenses and Rs.10,000/-
towards food & nourishment and conveyance expenses. In all, the tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,72,250/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit and since the vehicle in question is not covered by insurance policy, the liability was fastened on the owner of the vehicle i.e., respondent No.1 - the appellant herein to compensate the claimant. Respondent No.1 / owner of the vehicle being aggrieved by the judgment and award fastening liability on him, has preferred this appeal.
7. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by both the parties and perused the oral and documentary evidence.
8. The police records produced by the parties clearly disclose that due to actionable negligence on the part of rider of the Kinetic Honda, the accident has occurred; the claimant who was riding the motorcycle fell down and sustained injuries to his head. Hence, it is 6 clear that the injuries sustained by the claimant is due to road traffic accident that occurred on 21.12.2009. The claimant sustained head injuries and has taken treatment in M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, Bengaluru. CT Brain Plain was done and found tentorial SAH with diffuse cerebral oedema. The doctor also noticed that at multiple specks of the left posterior temporal area, there is haemorrhage at oedema. He has undergone operation on 22.12.2009. Since, the claimant has not examined the doctor to prove the disability, the Tribunal awarded the aforesaid compensation. The wound certificate and discharge summary discloses that the claimant had undergone many diagnostic process and one surgery. Taking into consideration the injuries sustained and sufferings undergone by the claimant, the Tribunal has rightly awarded just and fair compensation. There is no reason to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the tribunal.
9. With regard to the fastening of liability on the appellant herein, as on the date of the accident, the RC book stands in the name of the appellant herein, though 7 he contended that he has sold the vehicle to one K.C.Vittal in the year 2004, no documents have been produced. To establish the same, though the appellant herein examined the Assistant Regional Traffic Officer, Yeshawanthapura Traffic Police Station, the appellant has failed to establish that the vehicle has been sold to said K.C.Vittal and documents have been changed in the name of K.C.Vittal. On the other hand, documents produced before the Tribunal clearly discloses that as on the date of accident, appellant is the RC owner of the vehicle. In the absence of insurance coverage, fastening liability on the owner of the vehicle - appellant herein to compensate the claimant is just and proper. There is no illegality or infirmity in passing the judgment and award and the appellant has not made out any good case to interfere with the same.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
The judgment and award dated: 10.02.2011 made in MVC No.1165/2010 passed by the XIV Additional 8 Judge, MACT., Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru is upheld.
The amount deposited in this appeal shall be transmitted to MACT, Bengaluru for disbursement.
Sd/-
JUDGE Nvj/DL