Partly allowed

Riyaz S/O Noormohammad, v. Dattatray S/O Bandopanth Patil

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2022MFA/25670/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Motor Accident Claim Tribunal award for enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,800/- for injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident. The High Court, finding the Tribunal erred in the assessment regarding pain and suffering given the grievous injury, enhanced the global compensation to Rs.30,000/- with interest.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs.30,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

Riyaz S/O Noormohammad, Vs Dattatray S/O Bandopanth… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 25670 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 25670 OF 2011 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RIYAZ S/O NOORMOHAMMAD, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,R/O: GAJABARWADI, TALUK: HUKKERI

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. V.Y.KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

DATTATRAY S/O BANDOPANTH PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,R/O: MHAKAVE, TALUK: KAGAR,DIST: KOLHAPUR, STATE: MAHARASTRA.

¶14

THE BABURAO S/O TUKARAM PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,R/O: MHAKAVE, TALUK: KAGAL,DIST: KOLHAPUR, STATE: MAHARASTRA.

¶15

Digitally signed by J MAMATHA JMAMATHA Location:DharwadDate: 2022.08.18 12:24:47 +0530

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. N D GUNDE, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF THE M.V.ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED:26.10.2009, PASSED IN MVC NO.1452/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT AND M.A.C.T. HUKKERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY. THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.

¶20

¶21

MFA No. 25670 of 2011

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶24

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 26.10.2009 passed in MVC No.1452/2005 on the file of the Fast Track and MACT, Hukkeri,.

¶25

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 25.09.2004 at about 4 p.m., when the claimant/appellant was traveling on his motorcycle bearing registration No.MXD-8764 on the left side of the road, near Agriculture Farm on Nippani-Murgod road, the driver of a Kinetic Boss bearing registration No.MA-09/AH-1078 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the vehicle of the appellant and thereby caused the accident. As a result

¶26

of the same, the claimant/appellant sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to MGM Hospital at Nippani where he took treatment as an indoor patient for one day and from there he was shifted to CPR Hospital, Kolapur, for further treatment where he took treatment as an inpatient for 4 days and he has undergone an operation. He spent a sum of

¶27

¶28

MFA No. 25670 of 2011

¶29

Rs.35,000/- towards medical expenses. It was the claim of the appellant before the Tribunal that prior to the accident, the claimant was hale and healthy and earning Rs.8,000/- p.m. and maintaining his family. Due to the accident, the appellant has become physically and permanently disabled. Hence, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking for compensation.

¶30

In support of his claim, the claimant got examined himself as PW-1 and also got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. On the other hand, respondents did not examine any witness and did not mark any documents. The Tribunal after assessing both oral and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs.15,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award, the claimant has filed the present appeal seeking for enhancement.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the injured met with an accident on 25.09.2004 and he has taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 10 days. But, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of only Rs.6,000/-

¶32

¶33

MFA No. 25670 of 2011

¶34

towards pain and suffering, Rs.7,800/- towards medical expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards attendant charges and special diet charges. In all, only an amount of Rs.15,800/- is awarded to the claimant and hence, the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls interference of this Court.

¶35

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that except the document Ex.P.5 i.e., the wound certificate which discloses one grievous injury and one simple injury, no other documents are placed before the Court. The claimant has not even produced medical records to show that he has taken treatment as an inpatient but has only relied on the certificate issued by the doctor which is marked as Ex.P.9 which shows that the claimant was admitted to the hospital from 29.09.2004 till 08.10.2004. hence, he submits that the impugned judgment and award does not call for any interference.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the doctor has issued a certificate which is marked as Ex.P.9 which shows that the appellant took the first aid at

¶37

¶38

MFA No. 25670 of 2011

¶39

M.G.M.Hospital, Nippani and from there he was referred to C.P.R. Hospital, Kolhapur, where he was admitted from 29.09.2004 till 08.10.2004 and was treated with general supportive treatment. It is also important to note that the wound certificate is issued by the Nippani Hospital where he took the first aid and no document are produced to show that he was treated as an inpatient. However, the Tribunal has taken note of the nature of the injuries sustained but committed an error in awarding only Rs.6,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.2,000/- towards attendant charges when the appellant had suffered grievous injury and also a simple injury. Hence, it is a fit case to enhance the compensation to Rs.30,000/- as global compensation as against the sum of Rs.Rs.15,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶40

In view of the above discussions, I pass the

¶41

following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i) The appeal is allowed in part,

¶44

¶45

MFA No. 25670 of 2011

¶46

ii) The judgment and award dated 26.10.2009 passed by the Fast Track and MACT, Hukkeri, in M.V.C.No.1452/2005 stands modified.

¶47

iii) The claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.30,000/- as against the sum of Rs.15,800/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶48

iv) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

¶49

v) The entire compensation amount shall be released to the appellant.

¶50

vi) The registry is directed to send back the TCR forthwith.

¶51

(Sd/-) JUDGE

¶52

Riyaz S/O Noormohammad, v. Dattatray S/O Bandopanth Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Riyaz S/O Noormohammad, v. Dattatray S/O Bandopanth Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumar Madhur Vs the General Manager

Ramappa S/O Siddalingappa, Vs Dahulsab S/O Rehman

Ankush Vs the General Manager

Husainsab Vs Smt Modinabi @ Fakrubi

Susheelavva Vs Shivananda

The Divisional Manager Vs Shobha W/O Kumar Huded