In the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23 RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2015, : BEFORE : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL M.F.A.NO. 8433 OF 2014 (MV) Between: D.N. Chandrashekar, S/o. Late Nyanachar, Aged 38 years, R/at. Byadarahalli, Vishwaneedam Post, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore-91. ... Appellant (By Shri. K.V. Shyamaprasada, Advocate) And: 1. Ravi. T.R, S/o. Ramanjanappa, Major, R/at. No.1031, Vijayananda Nagar, Nandini Layout, Bangalore-96. 2. M/s. ICICI Lombard Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd., No.89, 2 nd Floor, SVR Complex, Hosur Road, Madiwala, Bangalore-68. Represented by its Manager. ... Respondents ***** This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated: 25/10/2014 passed in MVC No. 6033/2013, on the file of the IX Additional Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-7, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-7), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation. 2 This MFA coming on for Admission, this day, the Court delivered the following: J U D G M E N T This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 25 th October 2014, passed in MVC No.6033/2013, by the IX Additional Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-7, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-7), (for short, ‘Tribunal’), for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of `25,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimant as against his claim for `10,00,000/-, is inadequate. 2. The appellant claims to be aged about 37 years and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident at about 10:30 P.M., on 15-06-2013, when the appellant was riding the Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing Registration No.KA-42/E-161 on Bangalore-Magadi Main Road, near Rudrappa Basamma Chatra, on account of rash and negligent riding by the rider of Activa motor cycle 3 bearing Registration No.KA-02/HT-2918, is not in dispute. Due to the impact, the appellant fell down and sustained grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to Hospital for treatment of the said injuries. 3. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of `10,00,000/- against the Insurance Company and another. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 25th October, 2014. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding global compensation of `25,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed the appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation. 4 4. I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 5. Shri. K.V. Shyamaprasad, learned counsel appearing for appellant at the outset vehemently submitted that, the Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding reasonable compensation under different heads, for the reason that the appellant was aged about 37 years and a coolie, getting `10,000/- per month and sustained grievous injuries, viz. contusion over right knee joint on anterior aspect measuring 2 x 2 cm and abrasion over the left arm on lateral aspect in the middle 1/3 rd measuring 2 x 1 cm. fracture of the pattellor right and took treatment in SSG Hopsital, Anjana Nagar, Bangalore. Therefore, he submitted that reasonable compensation be awarded under different heads by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal. 5 6. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for appellant, after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, and after due consideration of the entire material available on file, it can be seen that the Tribunal, after assessing the oral evidence of PW 1 and documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P7, has awarded just and reasonable compensation of `25,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident. 7. The Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has observed that the appellant, except producing the Wound Certificate at Ex.P3, has not produced any other medical document to consider his avocation, earnings etc. as on the date of accident and the difficulties and disabilities stated to have been sustained in the road traffic accident have not been proved nor the appellant has examined the Doctor who issued the wound certificate. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence, except the Wound Certificate, I 6 am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal is justified in awarding global compensation of `25,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant. 8. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by appellant is liable to be dismissed as being devoid of merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Office to draw award, accordingly. SD/- JUDGE BMV* .