Karnataka High Court
Jayanath Kumar B vs M J Mahesha on 29 June, 2016
Author: B.Manohar
Bench: B.Manohar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
MFA.NO.1602/2016 (MV)
BETWEEN:
JAYANATH KUMAR.B
S/O BASAVASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/O 2ND CROSS,
HARISHCHANDRA CIRCLE,
MANDYA - 571 404. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SREENIVASAN.M.Y., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M.J.MAHESHA
S/O THAMMANNA,
MAJOR,
R/O NO.67, KALIKAMBA TEMPLE ROAD,
MANDYA CITY - 571 401.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED, M.C.ROAD,
MANDYA CITY - 571 401. ... RESPONDENTS
2
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:31.10.2015 PASSED
IN MVC NO.274/2009 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, MANDYA,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -
JUDGMENT
Appellant is the claimant, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 31-10-2015 made in MVC No.274/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandya (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) filed this seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The appellant filed a claim petition contending that on 19-03-2009, while he was proceeding in a bicycle sitting on the carrier of the bicycle ridden by his friend Jagadish, near New Market Road, rider of the scooter bearing Registration No.KA-02/K-5463 rode the same in a rash and negligent 3 manner and dashed against the bicycle. Due to that, the claimant as well as the rider of the bicycle fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The claimant sustained multiple injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to a private clinic and thereafter he was shifted to District Hospital at Mandya. He has taken treatment as inpatient and he claims that in the accident, he has sustained fracture of left clavicle and other injuries. He has spent more than Rs.75,000/- towards medical expenditure, Rs.50,000/- towards food, diet and transportation. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 32 years and doing milk vending business by rearing 5 milky cows and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m. Hence, sought for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.
3. In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal, though the first respondent owner of the offending vehicle was served with notice, he remained unrepresented. The second respondent/insurance company filed written 4 statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also denied the rash and negligent riding of the scoter. However, contended that Insurance policy covers the risk of the scooter and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. In order to prove his case, the claimant got himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. The doctor who issued the disability certificate was examined as P.W.2. On behalf of the respondents, none of the witnesses were examined. However, Insurance policy of the offending vehicle was marked as Ex.R1.
5. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration spot mahazar, IMV report, copy of the complaint and FIR, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the scooter and the claimant is 5 entitled to compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, in the accident, the claimant has sustained fracture of left clavicle. Though the claimant claims that he has spent huge money towards his treatment, he has not examined the doctor who treated him. Taking into consideration the injuries sustained and suffering undergone by the claimant, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.55,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant filed this appeal.
6. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and other relevant records.
7. The records clearly disclose that due to the actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the scooter, the claimant fell down and sustained fracture of clavicle bone on 6 19-03-2009. He has taken treatment in the District Hospital, Mandya. He was treated conservatively and he has not undergone any surgery, he has submitted the medical bill for Rs.6,000/-. The doctor who issued the disability certificate is not the treated doctor. For the fracture of clavicle bone, the doctor has assessed the disability to an extent of 20% which is contrary to law. The clavicle bone is only an ornamental bone and the said fracture does not lead to any disability. In the instant case, the disability assessed by the doctor is contrary to law. The Tribunal taking into consideration the injuries sustained and suffering undergone awarded just and fair compensation. The appellant has not made out a case to interfere with the said judgment and award. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-*