Dismissed

Sri Jayan S/O Late Raju v. Arun Kumar

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2023MFA/2250/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, the High Court of Karnataka held that while it found force in the argument that there was no nexus between the accident and the injuries sustained, it dismissed the appeal because the insurance company had already deposited the entire awarded amount, leaving no reason to enhance it.

What did the court decide?

None granted.

Sri Jayan S/O Late Raju Vs Arun Kumar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:30551 MFA No. 2250 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2250 OF 2012 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. JAYAN, SON OF LATE RAJU , AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O NO. 09, NEW THIPPASANDRA, JAGADISHNAGAR, MUNIPACHAPPA PALYA, BANGALORE - 75

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. D. S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A. G. AND ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

ARUN KUMAR,

¶13

Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MAJOR, NO 39/2, APPA REDDY PALYA, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE - 38.

¶15

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 144, SUBBARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 01.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. B. A. RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 07.07.2015)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.9.2011 PASSED IN MVC

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:30551 MFA No. 2250 of 2012

¶21

NO.8079/2009 ON THE FILE OF 14TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This is an appeal filed by the claimant aggrieved by the Award dated 23-09-2011 passed in M.V.C.No.8079/2009 by the XIV Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru whereby the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.72,200/-.

¶25

The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the road accident. It is the case of the claimant that on 06.03.2009 at about 12.00 midnight, the claimant was proceeding in the car and the same is driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, without observing traffic rules, due to passing of pigs, the driver applied sudden break and lost control and dashed against the road side standing tree and caused the accident. Due

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:30551 MFA No. 2250 of 2012

¶28

to the said impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Shree Mahadeshwara Nursing home, Mysore wherein he took treatment as an inpatient from 07.03.2009 to 10.03.2009 and as per the X-ray there is tibial condoyle fracture of left side. Then he was shifted to Chinmaya Mission Hospital at Bangalore wherein he took treatment as inpatient from 05.04.2009 to 11.04.2009 and he underwent surgery i.e., ORIF with buttress plate was done on 07.04.2009 and spent an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges.

¶29

The claimant in support of his case has examined PW.2 Dr. Murali Kumar.V, who was working at Chinmaya Mission Hospital, Bangalore. As per his evidence, he has treated the patient and on clinical examination on 05.04.2009 and the claimant underwent surgery and recently examined the patient on 22.01.2011 for follow up treatment and disability assessment and as per the X-ray,

¶30

it showed that the fracture was completely united and implants in site and opined that the patient had a total

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:30551 MFA No. 2250 of 2012

¶32

disability of left lower limb of 38.2% and whole body disability of 12.17% and also had to undergo further treatment for removal of implants which would cost an amount of Rs.35,000/-.

¶33

The Court below while dealing with issue No.1 has observed that Ex.P.3 - wound certificate dated 09.05.2009 issued by Chinmaya Mission hospital discloses that the claimant came to the hospital on 05.04.2009 with alleged history of road traffic accident said to have been occurred one week back and the patient sustained injuries of tenderness with swelling, deformity and abnormal mobility of the left leg upper end, X-ray of left knee with leg shows communited fracture of upper 1/3rd of left tibia and opinioned that the injury is grievous in nature and Ex.P.3 discloses that after lapse of nearly one month, the claimant had taken treatment and it is not believable that the alleged injuries mentioned in the wound certificate as per Ex.P.3 were caused from this accident. But however, the Court below has come to the conclusion that he has

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:30551 MFA No. 2250 of 2012

¶35

sustained injuries in the road traffic accident and granted the compensation of an amount of Rs.72,200/-.

¶36

Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the compensation amount that was awarded by the Tribunal was not a reasonable compensation and the Court below ought to have considered the injuries sustained by him and ought to have granted the compensation.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that the claimant is not at all entitled for any compensation as the evidence on record discloses that there is no nexus between the accident and the injuries sustained by him. The accident had taken place on 06.03.2009 and based on the evidence of the doctor, he was admitted on 05.04.2009 on account of the injuries he had sustained. Having disbelieved the version of the claimant, the Court below ought not to have given any compensation.

¶38

This Court finds force in the argument of the learned counsel for the insurance company. However, the

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:30551 MFA No. 2250 of 2012

¶40

¶41

insurance company has already deposited the entire amount. This Court finds no reason to enhance the compensation amount particularly in the light of the fact that for the injuries that are sustained by him which are fracture injuries, he was admitted in the hospital nearly after a month and no evidence is adduced about his admission in Shree Mahadeshwara Nursing home, Mysore.

¶42

Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is

¶43

dismissed.

¶44

SD/JUDGE

¶45

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT: BHK

Sri Jayan S/O Late Raju v. Arun Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jayan S/O Late Raju v. Arun Kumar

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

Kishore R @ Kishore Raj R Vs Royal Sundaram Alliance

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sudindra K N @ Kota Sudhindra Somayaji

Sri K M Girish Vs the Regional Manager

Sri. Devendra Vs Sri. K.S. Sudheer Kumar

Kumari Ravikala Poojari Vs Mohammad Rafik

Abdul Jabbar Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.