Remanded

Sri Madhukrishna S v. M/S Royal Sundaram Alliance

Karnataka HC4 Oct 2023MFA/3723/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Miscellaneous First Appeal sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claim Tribunal. The High Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal solely for the purpose of recording the cross-examination of a medical witness who had not undergone cross-examination previously. The impugned award was set aside, and the Tribunal was directed to dispose of the case within th

What did the court decide?

Impugned award by the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for cross-examination of the medical witness (PW-4) and disposal within three months. Appellant's I.A. is to be disp

Sri Madhukrishna S Vs M/S Royal Sundaram Alliance — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:35833-DB MFA No. 3723 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3723 OF 2020 (MV-I)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by D K BHASKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI MADHUKRISHNA S S/O DR. SUDHINDRA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO. B102 1^ST FLOOR, B BLOCK MANTRI FLORA, IBLUDUD GATE SARJAPUR ROAD, JUNCITION BANGALORE 560034.

¶13

(BY SRI. CHAITANYA S G - ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

…APPELLANT

¶16

M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD., SUNDARAM TOWERS NO.45 AND 46, WHITES ROAD CHENNAI 600002.

¶17

SRI RAJESH B V S/O VENKATESH NO.14, 1^ST MAIN ROAD GANDHINAGAR EXTENSION K.H.B. COLONY, YELAHANKA BANGALORE 560064.

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:35833-DB MFA No. 3723 of 2020

¶19

SRI VIJAY DAVID S/O FATHIMA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS NO. 1496, 14^TH CROSS HEGGADENAGAWR BANGALORE 560 077.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 28.03.2022, NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AWARDED DATED 31.10.2019 IN MVC 264/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCUDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND AWARD COMPENSATION OF RS.7,03,92,966.00 (RUPEES SEVEN CRORES THREE LAKHS NINETY TWO THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND SIXTY SIX ONLY).

¶23

THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

¶24

K. SOMASHEKAR .J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by the claimant / injured challenging the order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.264/2014 vide Annexure-"A".

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:35833-DB MFA No. 3723 of 2020

¶28

The appellant herein namely Shri Madhukrishna S had filed a petition before the Tribunal seeking absolute compensation under the relevant provisions of the MV Act, 1988 in view of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.

¶29

It is relevant to refer to the brief facts of the petition filed by the petitioner therein who is the appellant herein seeking intervention of the judgment and award of the Tribunal in MVC No.264/2014. It is stated that on 12.07.2012 at about 12.30 a.m., the petitioner had hired a car bearing No.KA-41-A4098 belonging to Respondent No.2 and driven by Respondent No.3 in order to reach his parents’ house at Girinagar from Bangalore International Airport. It is stated that the car while passing near Hebbal fly over, at about 1.30 a.m., had dashed against an electric pole on the left extreme of the road. The accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driver of Respondent No.3 due to which the appellant herein had sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to Fortis Hospital and thereafter was referred to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital for further treatment and once again was admitted for surgery and

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:35833-DB MFA No. 3723 of 2020

¶31

discharged on 09.11.2012. He was also advised for regular physiotherapy treatment. Thus, the appellant is said to have spent huge amount towards medical expenses. Due to the accident, the appellant is said to have lost control and sensation of both the hands and legs. Further, it is stated that he has also suffered super sensitivity of both his hands which resulted in severe pain by mere touch or blow of air. It is stated that the appellant was working as delivery head of Telecom Project with M/s. Wipro Limited and was based in Melbourne in Australia at the time of the accident. These are the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner who had initiated proceedings before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

¶32

However, subsequent to initiation of the proceedings in

¶33

MVC No.264/2014, the claimant / petitioner had examined himself as PW-1 and had got examined witnesses PWs 2 to 4 on his behalf. PW-4 / Dr. Ravi Gopal Varma is the Doctor who had treated the petitioner. But PW-4 has not withstood the cross-examination after completion of examination in chief. Documents at Exhibits P1 to P37 were got marked on behalf of the petitioner. Exhibit P24 is the FIR, Exhibit P25 is the complaint and Exhibit P26 is the panchanama. Subsequent to

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:35833-DB MFA No. 3723 of 2020

¶35

completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid a charge sheet against the accused before the court having jurisdiction at Exhibit P27. Exhibit P31 is the Wound Certificate, Exhibit P36 is the in-patient record, Exhibit P37 is the Disability Certificate, Exhibits P1 and P2 are the Discharge summary report inclusive of medical bills at Exhibit P3 (5 in number), medical bills at Exhibit P4 which are 54 in number, GK Homes Medical Bills as per Exhibit P6 and other Medical bills at Exhibit P10. These are the documents which were produced by the petitioner / claimant seeking compensation under the MV Act.

¶36

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel Shri Chaitanya S.G. for the appellant who is present before Court physically and also heard the counter arguments advanced by the learned counsel Shri Ravi S. Samprathi for Respondent No.1.

¶37

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks to re-visit the impugned judgment rendered by the Tribunal relating having regard to the material on record inclusive of the documents got

¶38

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:35833-DB MFA No. 3723 of 2020

¶39

marked on behalf of the claimants namely Exhibits P1 to P37 inclusive of the evidence of PWs 1 to 4.

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellant has also filed an application I.A.No.1/2023 before this Court seeking for appointment of a Court Commissioner in order to record the cross-examination of PW-4 / Dr. Ravi Gopal Varma to ascertain the disability of the appellant and submit a report in that regard.

¶41

Whereas the learned counsel for Respondent No.1 namely Shri Ravi S. Samprathi has also stated that the treated Doctor Shri Ravi Gopal Varma even though stood for examination-in-chief, but he did not stand for crossexamination. That part is very much required in view of the grounds urged in I.A.No.1/2023 as well as this appeal. Hence, he submits that the matter be remitted back to the Tribunal in MVC No.264/2014, only for the purpose of cross-examination of PW-4 / Dr. Ravi Gopal Varma.

¶42

Therefore, keeping in view the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent and so also keeping in view

¶43

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:35833-DB MFA No. 3723 of 2020

¶44

the contentious contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, without expressing any opinion on the merits of this matter this appeal deserves consideration to remit the same to the Tribunal only to cross-examine PW-4 / Dr. Ravi Gopal Varma.

¶45

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment and award dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.264/2014 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal in order to proceed with the cross-examination of PW-4 / Dr. Ravi Gopal Varma by making use of the relevant provisions of the CPC inclusive of the Indian Evidence Act.

¶46

The application I.A.No.1/2023 which has been filed before this Court seeking for appointment of a Court Commissioner to cross-examine PW-4 / Dr. Ravi Gopal Varma, shall be decided by the Tribunal having jurisdiction where the proceeding in MVC No.264/2014 has filed and remitted back, but disposal of the said application in accordance with law.

¶47

The case in MVC No.264/2014 is of the year 2014.

¶48

Several years have been passed. Therefore, the Tribunal shall

¶49

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:35833-DB MFA No. 3723 of 2020

¶50

dispose of the case in MVC No.264/2014 within an outer limit of

¶51

three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶52

All contentious contentions of both the parties are

kept open.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

Sri Madhukrishna S v. M/S Royal Sundaram Alliance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Madhukrishna S v. M/S Royal Sundaram Alliance

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

S Manjunatha Vs Sudhakar T M

Smt Lalitha Vs Kaisar Pasha

Smt. Mallamma Vs Sri Dinesha Naik

Sri.S.Yoga Vs Ramakrishna Math

Mr Ashoka Vs Mr Padmanabha

The United India Insurance Vs Smt Thulasamma