Remanded

Mr. Raghavendra Nayak @ Raghavendra v. Mrs. Malini S

Karnataka HC17 Aug 2022MFA/7142/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant sought enhancement of motor vehicle accident compensation. This Court set aside the Tribunal's award and remanded the case for fresh consideration on entitlement to additional future medical expenses, interest, and verification of the connection between subsequent hospitalization and original injuries.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is set aside; the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

Mr. Raghavendra Nayak @ Raghavendra Vs Mrs. Malini S — Karnataka HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

M.F.A.No.7142/2016 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. RAGHAVENDRA NAYAK @ RAGHAVENDRA S/O. VENKATARAYA KAMATH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT MAHAKALI BETTU HOUSE BARIMARU VILLAGE, KAGEKANA POST BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. PIN - 574 219

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MRS. MALINI S. S/O. SATHISH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT MANJUNATHA NILAYA H.NO.3-58-4, AJEKALA BYPASS ROAD BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT PIN - 574 219

¶13

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., GANESH BUILDING II FLOOR, BANTWAL CROSS ROAD BANTWAL, D.K.DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER PIN - 574 219

¶14

¶15

… RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI LAKSHMI NARASAPPA, ADV. FOR SRI A.M.VENKATESH, ADV. FOR R2 (THROUGH VC))

¶17

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC No.1395/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MANGALURU, D.K., PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act' for short), challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1395/2014 dated 18.07.2016 by the MACT and Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K., seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶21

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶22

The claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of the MV Act in MVC No.1395/2014, contending that on 21.07.2014 at 5.30 p.m., the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration

¶23

¶24

No.KA-19/EF-6612 and when he reached near Bridge Ajekala, Amtady Village, Bantwal Taluk, a car bearing registration No.KA-19/Z-7432 came in a rash and negligent manner from hind side and dashed against the motorcycle. Due to the impact, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to KMC Hospital, Mangaluru, wherein he was admitted as inpatient from 21.07.2014 to 02.08.2014 and after providing conservative treatment, he was discharged with an advice to take bed rest and follow up treatment. Therefore, he has preferred to file a claim petition in MVC No.2149/2016, seeking compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the meager side. Therefore, prays for enhancement of the compensation. Further, submitted that after disposal of the claim petition by the Tribunal, the appellant had admitted to the KMC Hospital,

¶26

¶27

Mangalore on 15.03.2017 and discharged on 06.04.2017 and he has spent Rs.1,52,800/- towards "medical expenses". Therefore, filed an application for production of additional evidence praying to grant the said amount along with enhancement on other heads also. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that even though in the affidavit, the claimant had deposed that he was admitted to KMC Hospital, Mangalore as inpatient on 15.03.2017 and discharged on 06.04.2017 and made expenditure of Rs.1,52,800/- and received the bills soon after he discharged from the Hospital but the same are produced by way of filing an Interlocutory Application for evidence only on 12.07.2022. Therefore, submitted that for proving these additional documentary evidence, he requested to remand the case to the Tribunal for fresh consideration regarding proving of his entitlement of the amount spent as stated above in the above said period.

¶29

¶30

Further submitted that the claimant is not entitled to interest for the delayed period of filing application. It is submitted that the claimant was admitted to the KMC Hospital, Mangalore after disposal of the claim petition by the Tribunal on 15.02.2017 and discharged on 06.04.2017 but the amount having spent for his future medical expenses is filed only on 12.07.2022. Therefore, prays to wave off the interest for this delayed period of production of additional evidence.

¶31

But, on the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that there remains various reasons for filing belated application for production of additional documents in this appeal that are beyond the control of the claimant and also that the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficiary legislation, therefore, interest cannot be waved off and prays for a grant of interest in the future medical expenses also.

¶32

¶33

The Insurance Company is disputing the

¶34

documents which are discharge summary and medical bills produced along with the Interlocutory Application and it is the contention of the appellant that the same is to be proved by examining any Medical Officer of the KMC Hospital, Mangalore and whether the treatment taken as inpatient after disposing of the claim petition, he is having any connection with the injury sustained in the accident that is to be ascertained. Therefore, prays to remand the case to the Tribunal for proof of those documents.

¶35

Having considered the rival submissions made above, it is stated by the claimant that he was admitted in KMC Hospital, Mangalore on 15.02.2017 and discharged on 06.04.2017 and made expenditure of Rs.1,52,800/- towards medical expenses. Regarding dispute raised by the Insurance Company that whether the discharge summary and medical evidence produced

¶36

¶37

are having connection with the injuries sustained in the accident which is to be ascertained by leading evidence.

¶38

Therefore, the matter is required to be

¶39

remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on this aspect that whether the claimant is entitled for the aforesaid amount of compensation towards future medical expenses made after disposal of the claim petition. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Further, the Tribunal shall decide the entitlement of the interest to be awarded on these medical bills produced by way of additional evidence. Admittedly, after disposal of the claim petition by the Tribunal, the claimant was constrained to admitted to the KMC Hospital, Mangalore as inpatient but the application is filed on 12.07.2022. Therefore, what are the reasons constraining the claimant to file this application for additional evidence in time, is also to be ascertained. Therefore, on this aspect, liberty is reserved to lead evidence from both sides.

¶40

¶41

Therefore, after considering this, the Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate orders regarding entitlement of interest on this amount also. Therefore, by keeping open all the contentions by both the parties, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. In this regard, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. The appeal is allowed.

¶44

ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.1395/2014 is hereby set-aside.

¶45

iii. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, in accordance with law, as observed above.

¶46

iv. All the contentions of the parties are left open and also liberty is reserved to both the parties to adduce any further evidence both oral and documentary.

¶47

¶48

v. Both the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 14.09.2022, without expecting any notice from the Tribunal.

¶49

vi. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the case within a period of six months from 14.09.2022.

¶50

vii. TCRs along with IA 1/2022 with documents annexed to it shall be transmitted to the Tribunal along with copy of this order forthwith.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Mr. Raghavendra Nayak @ Raghavendra v. Mrs. Malini S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Raghavendra Nayak @ Raghavendra v. Mrs. Malini S

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

Sri Jagadeesh K Vs Sri Krishnappa

Smt Parvathamma Vs Smt Rama Singh

Sri Rangegowda B D Vs Sri Hanumesh S N

Smt. Shivanagamma Vs Jiyauddin

Branch Manager Vs Smt Shivanagamma

The Legal Manager Vs Mr Dasharath.K