Sri P S Jayappa Vs C Manjunatha

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1082/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by the injured/claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 10.10.2018 passed in M.V.C. No.1082 of 2017 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga (for short, 'Tribunal').

¶27

Though this appeal is listed for orders, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶28

Sri Spoorthy Hegde Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18389 MFA No. 9672 of 2018

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

erred in assessing the income of the injured at Rs.7,000/-

¶32

per month. He seeks to reassess the income at Rs.11,000/- per month as per the Notional Income Chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA). It is submitted that the award of compensation by the Tribunal on other heads is also on the lower side, the same is required to be reassessed appropriately. It is submitted that the appellant after being discharged from the hospital and even after disposal of the case before the Tribunal was again hospitalised in view of the purulent discharge from left ankle joint and the said readmission was relating to the injury suffered by him in the road accident. It is further submitted that the appellant has filed an application for production of additional documents. Hence, he seeks to enhance the compensation appropriately by considering the additional evidence on record.

¶33

Per contra, Sri B.C. Shivanne Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18389 MFA No. 9672 of 2018

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

submits that insofar as the reassessment of income is concerned, the Insurance Company may not have any objection. However, the appellant has placed only 31 medical bills to the tune of Rs.1,93,162/- and apart from the bills, he has not placed any prescriptions, discharge summary, case sheet. Hence, it would be difficult for the Court to come to conclusion that the treatment obtained by the appellant is relating to the injury suffered by him. Hence, he submits that it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the Tribunal. So, that the Tribunal can reassess the compensation by considering its contentions advanced in the appeal memo as well as in the application.

¶37

I have heard the arguments on both sides and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶38

The records indicate that the appellant met with a road accident on 21.07.2017. He was provided treatment at Government Hospital Chitradurga and thereafter at Manipal Hospital, Bangalore. He has filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18389 MFA No. 9672 of 2018

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

compensation. In order to prove his claim, he examined himself as PW1 and examined Dr.Ambarish as PW2 and got marked the documents as per Exs.P1 to P30. The Tribunal, considering the material available on record has assessed the income of the injured/claimant at Rs.7,000/per month, assessed the disability at 15% and awarded total compensation of Rs.4,48,900/- on different heads.

¶42

The appellant has filed IA.No.I of 2022 for production of additional documents. The affidavit accompanying the application indicate that the appellant was again readmitted in Manipal Hospital and incurred substantial expenses to the tune of Rs.1,93,162.28/- and to substantiate the same he has produced the bills. It is to be noticed that the said alleged admission of the appellant is on 30.07.2021 which is nearly 2 years after the disposal of the case before the Tribunal. Hence, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the Tribunal with direction to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law by giving an opportunity to both the

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18389 MFA No. 9672 of 2018

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

parties to adduce additional evidence and to produce additional documents.

¶46

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the appeal is disposed of. The judgment and award dated 10.10.2018 in M.V.C. No.1082 of 2017 by M.A.C.T, Chitradurga is set aside.

¶47

The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to reconsider the claim petition of the appellant by accepting the additional evidence now placed in this appeal and pass the appropriate order, in accordance with law after providing sufficient opportunity to both the parties to the proceedings.

¶48

The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the claim petition within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.

¶49

Registry is directed to return the original documents placed along with the application filed by the appellant by replacing them with photostat copies.

¶50