Partly allowed

Smt. Anuradha v. Sri. Manjunatha R.

Karnataka HC25 Nov 2020MFA/6806/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award under Section 173(1) of the MV Act. The High Court enhanced the global compensation from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 25,000 based on evidence of head and spine injuries, despite the absence of a doctor's testimony on disability.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 25,000 with 6% interest; insurance company to deposit the amount within 90 days.

Smt. Anuradha Vs Sri. Manjunatha R. — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

MFA NO.6806 OF 2018 (MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. ANURADHA W/O. LATE CHANDRAMURTHY. H.M., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, HARTHI VILLAGE AT POST, KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶11

....APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI.SHRIPAD V SHASTRI., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI. MANJUNATH. R S/O. LATE RANGEGOWDA C.M., NO.1338, 10^TH MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, SRINIVASANAGAR, BSK 1^ST STAGE, BANGALORE-560 050.

¶15

¶16

THE MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE GEN. INS. CO. LTD., BRIGADE ROAD, NEXT TO BRIGADE TOWERS, BANGALORE-25.

¶17

….RESPONDENTS

¶18

(SRI. O.MAHESH,, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.05.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.2228/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, (SCCH-5), BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The captioned appeal is filed by the claimant in MVC.No.2228/2017 against the impugned common judgment and award dated 4.5.2018 passed in MVC.Nos.2226/2017 c/w MVC.No.2228/2017 by the

¶23

¶24

VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and XXXIII ACMM, Member-MACT, Bengaluru, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶25

The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶26

It is contended that on 4.4.2017 at about 6.15

¶27

p.m. the claimant was proceeding along with her husband(deceased in MVC.No.2226/2017) on a motor bike bearing Regn.No.KA-52-Q-1538 from Kudur towards Harti and when they reached near Kudluru Cross, the driver of the offending car bearing No.KA05-MM-7982 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor bike. On account of the collision, the husband of the first claimant sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries while he was being shifted to the hospital. The claimant sustained injuries. Immediately after the accident, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Nelamangala, wherein she took first aid treatment and then shifted

¶28

¶29

to NIMHANS Hospital, Bengaluru and thereafter to Panacea Hospital, wherein she took treatment as inpatient and spent a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards medical care, conveyance etc. Hence, the claimant filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

¶30

The second respondent-Insurance Company on receipt of notice contested the proceedings by filing the written statement. The Insurance Company specifically contended that the driver of the car did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Further, admitted the issuance of the policy and contended that the liability if any to pay compensation would be subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.

¶31

The first respondent also contested the proceedings by filing objections. The owner of the

¶32

¶33

offending car specifically contended that it is the rider of the bike who was negligent and was responsible for the accident. Further contention was taken that if the Tribunal were to arrive at a conclusion that the claimants are entitled to compensation, the second respondent being the insurer is liable to indemnify the first respondent and accordingly, pay the compensation to the claimants.

¶34

Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

¶35

following issues:

¶36

"1. Whether Petitioenr proves that, on 04.04.2017 at about 6.15 p.m., while she was proceeding as pillion rider in Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-52-Q-1538, from Kudur towards Harthi, when she reached near Kudluru Cross, on HN-75 Road, Magadi Taluk, at that time, a driver of the car bearing Reg.No.KA-05-MM7982 driven in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed against the Motor Cycle, as a result of which, Petitioner fell down and she sustained grievous injuries, as mentioned in claim petition?

¶37

¶38

2. Whether Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

¶39

3. What Order?"

¶40

The claimant in support of her contentions, examined herself as P.W.1. The appellant in support of her contention has examined herself as P.W.1 and

¶41

has produced discharge summary and medical bills and X-ray as per Exs.24 to 27. The respondents having taken a specific contention that the rider of the

¶42

bike was negligent and was also responsible for causing the accident have not at all chosen to produce either ocular or documentary evidence.

¶43

The Tribunal having assessed the evidence on record has answered Issue No.1 in the affirmative holding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car and

¶44

¶45

that the claimant sustained grievous injuries in the said accident.

¶46

While determining the compensation, the Tribunal having examined the wound certificate as per Ex.P22 and referral card as per Ex.P23 has recorded a finding that appellant has not examined the doctor who treated her to prove the disability suffered by her. In the absence of medical evidence indicating the disability, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- globally with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement.

¶47

We have meticulously examined the entire material on record. The Medical records indicates that she has suffered injuries to head and spine. However, having regard to the injuries suffered by the appellant

¶48

¶49

we would deem it fit to award another sum of

¶50

Rs.25,000/- globally.

¶51

Hence, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i] The appeal is partly allowed. iii] The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal globally at Rs.10,000/- is modified and enhanced to Rs.25,000/- globally with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶54

v] The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability and disbursement remains intact.

¶55

vi] The insurance company shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of

¶56

¶57

receipt of the certified copy of the

¶58

judgment and order.

¶59

vii] The enhanced compensation amount shall be disbursed after securing proper

¶60

identification.

¶61

viii] All the appeals stand disposed of in terms of above. ix] Draw modified award accordingly. x] The Registry shall transfer the original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

*alb/-.

Smt. Anuradha v. Sri. Manjunatha R.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anuradha v. Sri. Manjunatha R.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Claim Manager Vs Yashodamma

Smt N Lalitha Vs Sri Nagaraju

Sri Gundappa Vs Sri S Sivabalan

Bangalore Metropolitan Vs Ms Leelambika

Smt Anuradha Vs Sri Manjunath R

The Regional Manager Vs Smt. Kalavathi