Keshuram Suthar Vs the Managing Director Bmtc

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED XIX ADDL. SCJ, MACT & XLI ACMM IN M.V.C.NO.1076/2010 IN ITS JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.9.2012 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM RS. 2,25,000/- TO RS.12,75,000/- AND INTEREST 18% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION TILL REALIZATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is by the appellant/claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation arising out of judgment and award dated 22.09.2012 in MVC No.1076/2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru (SCCH17) (for short ‘Tribunal’).

¶23

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal for easy reference.

¶24

3. The brief facts of the case are that:-

¶25

On 30.01.2010 at about 4.15 p.m., when the petitioner was proceeding in a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-R-3096 and when he reached BRV junction,

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:48048 MFA No. 6904 of 2013

¶27

3 -

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Shivajinagar, at that time, a BMTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-01-FA-2195 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. Due to which, he fell down and sustained fracture injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to hospital. Hence, petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

¶30

Upon service of notice, the respondent No.1 had remained absent and was placed exparte and respondent No.2 appeared and filed its written statement admitting the issuance of policy. It contended that the driver of the BMTC Bus did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and contended that the accident was due to negligent driving of the petitioner and not on the part of the driver of the BMTC Bus. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition.

¶31

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues and recorded the evidence. The petitioner was examined as PW-1 and doctor was

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:48048 MFA No. 6904 of 2013

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

examined as PW-2 and marked documents at Exs.P1 to P-13. The respondents have neither examined the

¶36

witnesses nor got marked the documents.

¶37

After hearing the parties and on perusal of the documents, the Tribunal has allowed the petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per Ex.P.3 – discharge summary, appellant has sustained right scapula thoracic dissociation, comminuted fracture body of right scapula, fracture 2^nd and 5^th ribs right side, right sided pleural effusion, fracture C6 to D8 spinous process and lacerated wound over right side of face and he underwent a procedure of wound debridement and suturing and ICD insertion. The Tribunal has not properly considered the case of the appellant and awarded meager compensation under all heads which require enhancement.

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48048 MFA No. 6904 of 2013

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Accordingly, sought to allow the appeal and enhance compensation by modifying the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶42

Refuting the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Tribunal after considering entire material placed before it, awarded appropriate compensation. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused entire appeal papers.

¶44

It is not in dispute that the appellant has suffered fracture of 9^th , 10^th and 11^th ribs on the right side and there is injury to the spleen. However, it is seen that the compensation awarded on various heads are on the lower side. Taking into consideration the treatment taken and

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48048 MFA No. 6904 of 2013

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

injuries suffered, we are of the considered view that the claimant would be entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶48

Respondent No.2 shall deposit the above enhanced compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶49