Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1510 (KAR)

Raghupathy@ Raghavendra v. Nishganth Reddy Major

2020-07-28

JYOTI MULIMANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Jyoti Mulimani, J. - Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Tribunal. 3. This is claimant's appeal for seeking enhancement of compensation and modification of the judgment and award dated 13.08.2012 passed in MVC No.3745/2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for the sake of brevity) 4. The claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000-/ (Rupees Eight Lakh only) for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident that occurred on 26.02.2009. 5. It is the case of the claimant that he was aged about 20 years and working as a Sales Man earning a sum of Rs.5,000-/ per month. On the fateful day i.e., on 26.02.2009 at about 9.00 a.m., he was going on the middle of the road to reach the opposite shop at Whitefield. At that time, the driver of the Hero Honda bearing No. KA-03-HD-2998 which is insured with the second respondent came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit him. As a result of which, he sustained severe injuries to left ear and he took treatment in the Hospital. He has contended that he has spent huge amount towards his treatment on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. He could not attend his routine work as he was aged 20 years at the time of accident. He has lost all hopes in his future. Contending that he is entitled to damages on various heads to the extent of Rs.8,00,000/- , he brought action by filing a claim petition before the Tribunal. 6. In response to the notices issued by the Tribunal, respondent No.1 - owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 - Insurance Company appeared through their respective counsels and filed their written statement. They denied the claim averments made in the claim petition. Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. They denied the claim averments made in the claim petition. Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. But admitted the issuance of the insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle and its validity as on the date of the accident. The Insurance Company further urged that their liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration: "i. Whether the petitioner proves that he met with an RTA that occurred on 26.02.2009 at about 9.00 a.m. at Immedihalli main road, Whitefield and sustained injuries due to rash or negligent driving of Herohonda bearing No. KA-03-HD-2998? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, at what amount and from whom? iii. What order?" 8. In order to substantiate his case, claimant examined himself as PW.1 and one Sri-Suresh who was an eye witness to the accident got examined as PW.2. and produced 11 documents which were marked as Exs.P1 to P11. Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company got examined Sri.G.Shivakumar as RW-1 and got marked insurance Policy as Ex.R1. Respondent No.1 has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. 9. On the basis of the pleadings, the matter proceeded before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the material on record allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.46,000/- as compensation with costs and future interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the judgment and award, the claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and modification of the judgment. 10. Sri.Shripad Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the claimant contended that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record and hence, submitted that the award is capricious, illegal and against the law of evidence and also against the principles of settled law. Learned counsel vehemently urged that the Tribunal ought to have granted more compensation towards 'pain and suffering' in view of the fact that the claimant has sustained severe injuries to the left ear and other eight grievous injuries all over the body for which he took treatment as inpatient in private hospital for considerable length of time. Learned counsel vehemently urged that the Tribunal ought to have granted more compensation towards 'pain and suffering' in view of the fact that the claimant has sustained severe injuries to the left ear and other eight grievous injuries all over the body for which he took treatment as inpatient in private hospital for considerable length of time. A further submission was made that the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation towards 'loss of amenities of life' by considering the injuries sustained and its after effect on the claimant. Lastly, he contended that the compensation awarded under other various heads is very meagre. Learned counsel for claimant sought for enhancement of compensation. 11. Per contra, Sri.C.R.Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.H.S. Lingaraju, for second respondent - Insurance Company. He vehemently contented the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. A further submission was made that the liability if any, is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Learned counsel fairly submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding the compensation towards 'loss of amenities of life'. Lastly, he contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant, arbitrary and excessive amounts awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, learned counsel sought for dismissal of the appeal. 12. While arguing the matter, learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as for the Insurance Company submitted that appeal may be disposed of by awarding a global compensation. 13. I have heard the contentions and submissions put forth by learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 14. The sole contention raised by the claimant before this Court is with regard to enhancement of compensation. It is not necessary to dilate factual aspects considered by the Tribunal. 15. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 26.02.2009 at about 9.00 a.m. The offending vehicle i.e., Hero Honda came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant. As a result of which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and he took treatment in Private Hospital. In order to substantiate the contentions, the claimant relied upon police records such as, FIR and statement, charge sheet, mahazar and wound certificate. As a result of which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and he took treatment in Private Hospital. In order to substantiate the contentions, the claimant relied upon police records such as, FIR and statement, charge sheet, mahazar and wound certificate. It is also not in dispute that the Traffic Police have registered a case against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. The Tribunal has taken into consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs.46,000/- as compensation. The insurance company has not filed any appeal. 16. Taking into consideration of the submission made by learned counsels, the claimant is entitled for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) as global compensation. The second respondent - Insurance Company is directed to pay global compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) along with interest 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization and the same shall be deposited within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The entire compensation shall be released in favour of the claimant on proper identification. Accordingly, appeal is disposed of. Registry is hereby directed to draw up the award accordingly. No order as to costs.