Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1067 (KAR)

Anand v. Vinod Gurunath Joshi

2020-06-12

V.SRISHANANDA

body2020
JUDGMENT V. Srishananda, J. - The claimant in MVC No.122/2008 having not satisfied with the award of compensation passed in the judgment and award dated 02.02.2009 by the II-Additional M.A.C.T., Karwar (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) has preferred this appeal. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under: In the claim petition, it is contended that on 04.02.2008 at about 04.00 p.m., when the claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing No.KA-30/H-7440 with necessary care and caution, the driver of Indica car bearing No.KA-30/6605 drove his car in a rash and negligent manner on M.G. road towards Kamalakar Road in Karwar and dashed against the said motorcycle resulting in claimant sustaining grievous injuries i.e. fracture of shaft of right femur and fracture of both right tibia and fibula. It is further the case of the claimant that after the accident, he was shifted to District Hospital, Karwar and thereafter to Tejaswini Hospital wherein he was admitted as an inpatient from 05.02.2008 to 02.04.2008 and spent huge amount towards medical treatment. He further contended that he was working as a supervisor in Rao's Sales and Services and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month and due to the accidental injuries, he suffered permanent disability and hence, sought for adequate compensation. On issuance of notice, respondents 1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal and the 2nd respondent/insurance company alone filed its written statement denying the claim petition averments to the effect that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of Indica Car and the accident took place due to the negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. It is further contended that the driver of the indica car did not possess a valid licence and hence sought for dismissal of the claim petition. It is alternatively contended that in the event if the Tribunal comes to a conclusion to award any compensation, 50% of contributory negligence should be attributed to the appellant/claimant. Before the Tribunal, in order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the appellant got examined himself as P.W.1 and the doctor, who treated him as P.W.2 and got marked documents vide Exs.P.1 to P.15. On behalf of the respondent/insurance company no oral evidence was placed except marking Ex.R.1/insurance policy. Before the Tribunal, in order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the appellant got examined himself as P.W.1 and the doctor, who treated him as P.W.2 and got marked documents vide Exs.P.1 to P.15. On behalf of the respondent/insurance company no oral evidence was placed except marking Ex.R.1/insurance policy. On cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,59,350/- under the following heads:- a) Towards pain and agony Rs.40,000/- (Rs.30,000/- + Rs.10,000/-) b) Towards medical expenses Rs.50,000/- and conveyance allowances c) Loss of income during the Rs. 8,850/- period of treatment d) Towards attendant charges Rs. 5,900/- e) Towards loss of future Rs.25,000/- unhappiness and loss of amenities f) Towards loss of future income Rs.1,29,600/- Grand Total Rs.2,59,350/- 3. The learned counsel, Sri. T. M. Nadaf, vehemently contended that the Tribunal has erroneously awarded the compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and conveyance allowance, whereas on record there was sufficient documentary placed by the claimant, which has been totally ignored and no reasons whatsoever assigned by the Tribunal in assessing the above said sum of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and conveyance allowance. 4. Learned counsel further pointed out that on record, the documentary evidence are produced, which clearly shows that the Tribunal has not taken into account the medical bills to the tune of Rs.1,37,034.95/- and therefore, he seeks for enhancement of the compensation. It is his further contention that the appellant/claimant is still under treatment and post-judgment he incurred additional medical expenses towards his treatment and therefore, the same should be taken into account. In this regard, I.A.No.1/2018 under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC along with affidavit has been filed seeking permission to place additional evidence on record for having incurred additional medical expenses. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent, Sri. A. G. Jadhav, contended that the insurance company has already satisfied the award of the Tribunal and at this stage, the additional evidence if at all to be considered, the matter requires a fresh consideration before the Tribunal and the claimant is also required to prove the fact of additional expenditure and mere production of the documents before this Court as additional evidence ipso facto do not make out a case for the appellant to seek for grant of enhancement of compensation. He submitted that if the Court comes to a conclusion that the additional evidence is necessary for disposal of the appeal, the matter may be remitted back to the Tribunal on the question of additional evidence. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that this Court itself may consider the post-judgment expenses incurred by the claimant and pass a suitable order. 7. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are as under:- 1. Whether the appellant has made out a case for placing additional evidence on record? 2. Whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? 8. The answer to point No.1 is in the negative and Point no.2 is in the affirmative for the following: REASONS 9. The main thrust of argument of the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. T. M. Nadaf is that, the Tribunal has ignored the medical bills produced before it while awarding sum of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and conveyance allowance. In this regard, he specifically pointed out that, before the Tribunal he has produced the medical bills along with the claim petition to the tune of Rs.1,37,074.95/-. 10. Perused the Trial Court Records. The medical bills are produced and marked before the Tribunal which finds place in the deposition of P.W.1. In further examination-in-chief at para No.2 of the deposition of P.W.1, it is specifically contended that 11 receipts, 2 blood bank certificates, 2 lab reports, 143 medical bills, one canteen bill, one ambulance bill and the disability certificate along with X-ray films are produced and marked vide Exs.P.1 to P.15. 11. In the impugned judgment, there is no discussion in detail with regard to medical bills. The Tribunal has however awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards medical bills and conveyance allowance. What is the basis for adjudging sum of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and conveyance allowance is not found in the judgment of the Tribunal. 12. It is well settled principle of law that reasoning is the heart-beat of judgment. Assigning proper reasons is very much necessary while arriving at a finding to be recorded by any Court. In the case of Secretary and Curator Victoria Memorial Hall vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity, (2010) 3 SCC 732 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "32. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Assigning proper reasons is very much necessary while arriving at a finding to be recorded by any Court. In the case of Secretary and Curator Victoria Memorial Hall vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity, (2010) 3 SCC 732 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "32. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/ unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum." 13. Applying the above legal principles to the case on hand, it is crystal clear that the Tribunal did not record any reason whatsoever, muchless valid reasons, to arrive at a finding that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and conveyance allowance. More so, when the claimant has placed on record the medical bills in a sum of Rs.1,37,074.95 along with petition itself. Non-considering of medical bills, in the considered opinion of this Court, is a grave error in recording a finding by the Tribunal on medical expenses. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to enhanced sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses and conveyance allowance. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that after passing of the judgment also, the claimant has taken treatment. On perusal of the judgment passed by the Tribunal, it is seen that there is no amount awarded for future medical expenses having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. The accident is of the year 2008, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that a reasonable amount has to be awarded on the head of future medical expenses and thus, this Court deems it fit to grant a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses. 15. Having regard to the date of the accident and considering the additional evidence, remitting back of matter for fresh consideration by the Tribunal would not only result in delay of proceedings but also affects finality of the lis. 16. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has not made out any good grounds to lead additional evidence by producing additional documents. 17. 16. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has not made out any good grounds to lead additional evidence by producing additional documents. 17. For the foregoing reasons, I answer Point No.1 in the negative and Point No.2 in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:- decinier ORDER The appeal is allowed in part and I.A.No.1/2018 is dismissed. Consequently, in addition to the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which was satisfied by the insurance company, the appellant/claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- as discussed in the body of the judgment. Since the enhancement is on the head of medical expenses, the same shall be paid to the appellant/claimant by the insurance company within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of this order till entire realization. Draw the modified award accordingly.