Venkataramu @ Venkataramaiah vs New India Assurance Co Ltd on 23 October, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN

DATED THES THE 23rd DAY OF' oerosan at K
BEFORE   tt'"tu
THE HON'BLE MR. ,;us,»r:cE   
M.F.A.Nop..7_827/'»2oo9   ~ =    

BETWEEN:    A 3 ' 

Sri Venkataramu @  

S/o Late Ramappa,  '  7  

Aged about 40 years,__ _ __ as

R/ at C/O Muni'swarn'appa~,, _  ._ 

No.187/1, fin"     
GoVindara}a;a,_aga:*;a,V     
Banga1ore.;55C§:O4G.'   ._    APPELLANT
(By   Advocate}

A_N!;1=.

  A  1.IvC(/s..NevvHin'd'ia Assurance Co., Ltd.,

 ._KIA,DB Complex, 1 Floor.
' ...HQSL1Io~.R,oad, Bommasandra,
Ba:*;ga,Iore--56O 099.
v_Rep,1=by its Manager.

 ,2_. Z 'vD«;fr.J.R.Krishna Roddy

S/0 late Ramaiah,

M/s Omkar Transport Corporation,

No.4/ 1 1-13, Rajarajeshwari

Weigh Bridge Compound,

Hosur main Road,

BangaIore--56O O27.  RESPONDENTS

(By Sri M.P.Srikanth, Advocate for R1, R2--served and

unrepresented)



This M.F.A. is filed under Section 173(1) ofdt-he MV
Act against the judgment and award dated

passed in MVC No.3786/2008 on the 
Additional Judge and Member, ll/lotor   g 
Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH- '

claim petition for compensation  '~ s'-eeliilng

enhancement of compensVati;on.g
This M.F.A. coming  day, the
court delivered the fo'llo_*_oVing,:.§7'V::'   T'
  
gs  it before the Motor
Accident    being aggrieved by the

judgmentnand awards' dated 29.06.2009 made in

  filed this appeal, seeking

V' I =en?o.ai1vcem'crit' -of compensation.

 'ilhev 'tirief facts of the case are as follows:

The claimant along with his minor son were

TA"-fplroceeding slowly and cautiously on Bangalore to

it "'"l\/Iysore Road on a bicycle on 17.04.2008, at about 7.00

p.m., to collect money from the customers regarding

vending of milk, near Rama Temple Arch, Ramanagara

/2?



Town. At that time, goods tempo bearing registration

No. KA--01-C--1089 came from Mysore by overt.a}:ing a

lorry in a rash and negligent 

against the petitioner's bicycle- ~Due to ' ~ 

the petitioner and his minor   

sustained grievous injurie_s:~~._% lrnmedia'tely,llV"'he was

shifted to Government Rar'nan'agara for
treatment. The son'   to the same
hospital for,  "accident, he has
sustainedllirij'u.'ries._ and he has spent
huge lutrleatrnent and sought for

compensaecn  5', oo;-ooa/-.

   pursuanlclellto the notice issued by the Motor

  Tribunal, the List respor1dent--Insurer

filed  statement of objections. However, the 2nd

 prespondient remained expaxte. The 1st respondent in the

 -,,vob._jeAction statement denied the averrnent made in the

 V.._..staten1ent. However, admitted that the said goods

vehicle was covered by Insurance. The 13' respondent

alleged that due to the rash and negligent riding of the

A



bicycle, accident has taken place while snddenly

crossing the road. It is also contended;'~tlfi'at*«_the

compensation claimed by the claimant is_.AexcessiVe 

the petitioner has to prove the.;disa4bili:ty"an*d;  ' in "

dismissal of the appeal as against :7'

4. On the basis of the pleadingsllof parties, the
Motor Accident  'i7'_rib-f.Jnal_'»t"r'amed the following

issues.   '
I.     proves that he has
 ....  _T"s_t1stained_':injt,rrie~s....i;i a MVA that was taken
Vplaeevf'on"-._l7._¢i.2008, at about 7.00 p.m.,
" ypBangalore'%'-My*s'ore Road, near Rama Temple
 Ranianagara Town due to user of
 Goodst....Carrier Tempo bearing No.KA--Ol--C--
 being driven by its driver in an

 '5s"Q't'ionab1e negligence?

 a ll,  Whether the petitioner is entitled for the
it compensation as prayed for? If so, against

whom'?

HI. What order and award?

A"



5. The petitioner in order to prove his case examined

himself as P.W.l and got marked documents,

to Ex.P.16. The Doctor who has 

examined as PW.2. However, the._respondents liave not ' . 

examined any witnesses. The  of"-the_ins§j'ran*c.e

Policy marked as Ex.R.1   ofl'th'e'parties;" V

6. On the basis of  parties and
also documents:-_ produced by the
ciainiarlt;  tillairns Tribunal is of the
'the"~r:ashllafldfnegligent driving of the
 has taken place. The police

have_regis'tered_a case" against driver of the said vehicle

  voffences punishable under Sections 279 and 337

   Section 187 of MV Act. The report of

tl1§ 1\/I;otr'):r:'.."\fll.ehicle Inspector and sketch clearly shows

 that accident has taken place due to the rash and

T'  negligent driving.

7. With regard to quantum of compensation is

concerned, though the claimant contend that he was

/$«



6

earning €12,000/-- per month by milk vending
business. In support of the same, no document has

been produced. In the absence of the .'

Accident Claims Tribunal taking into the 

income of ?.lOO/-- per day and   7

?.36,000/- has awarded compensation.  A .' by 1

8. The P.W.2  depose'd«..1;_h.,a"t.yhe has treated the
claimant and i.ssuedA.wo.und Ex.P.4. As per

the wound:  at _the claimant has
sustained  foilotyiin inj 

I]    'injury to the right knee

 it ll} Fracture, of 591 and 6"' ribs on right side

A A * -.  .,:_IlI] *,?"Abrasion over right leg

at Eibrasion over the face

it   Doctor has opined that, injuries No. 1 and 2 are of

grievous in nature. The doctor has opined that there is a

permanent disability of 25% in right lower limb and
permanent disability to the whole body is 9%. The

Tribunal taking into consideration the opinion

&~



expressed by the doctor considered the permanent

disability at 5% and awarded compen_sati'on-~.Vv at

?.1,05,200/- i.e., 325,200/W towards losisdd4'ot3j'fidit"e.reVy

income, ?.2(),00O/- towards,  pain   *4  ' 5 

€50,000/~ towards medical  

charges and (10,000/--  loss "medical V

expenses with interest at _6%-..per"'annurn"from the date
of petition till the date of  aggrieved by
the judgmentarid  Motor Accident

Claims  preferred the present

9. _ _ Srid4B.If:{eshavamVtirthy, Advocate appearing for the

  contendthat the judgment and award passed

 'byuthe»-..ll/iotor_1..Accident Claims Tribunal is contrary to

law.  the doctor in his evidence has deposed

 that the permanent disability is at 9% to the whole

  but the Tribunal has taken the disability at 5%

 =  awarded compensation, which is contrary to law.

Further, the claimant contended that he was a milk

Vendor by profession and was earning 312,000/-- per

Aw



month, but the Tribunal has taken into consideration

3100/ ~ per day and awarded compensation,vw.vif}f1:ic~h is

very meager and sought for enh_ancemen=t 

compensation.   

10. On the other hand;._ti}.ri M;p,si--:i;ant1§[,"iAavocate~'

appearing for the _.i§i responxcleii.t. contends} that the
compensation aw3.rded__'  it  Accident Claims
Tribunal is  Taking into
 of the claimant, the
Tribunal   tcofii'pvensation, which is in
accordance'  sought for dismissal of the

app6a1« 

   he  gone through the arguments

addressed' the parties and perused the oral and

 Apdocutmc-intary evidence let in by the parties. The fact is"

Q' --..pn-otiin dispute that the claimant sustained injuries on

 V» ...----i7.0-4.2008 at about 7.00 p.m., near Rama Temple

Arch, Ramanagara Town. Due to the accident, he has

sustained injuries as referred above. He was admitted

/5»



to the Government Hospital, Ramanagara.  taken

treatment. He has stated that he had spent 

?.50,000/- towards medicai expenditure. by

of the charge sheet filed before they "  ' ; 

motor vehicle inspector and   

accident has taken p1aceV»dt:1'e~._to  V

driving of the said goods terfl]3i3_}" 

12. With     compensation is

concerned;  claims Tribunal taking

into:c'o"Iisiderati3on  ?.100/- per day and"

pemnanent Vdisab'il1ty'».E'3% has awarded compensation.

ACCO.1?dir1§" if' ihi'mt°.th'e" award of the Motor Accident

  ,  to the report of the doctor.

  iiiihie report has opined that the disability is

 beiiiiig Tribunal has taken the disability at only

  "which is contraiy to the opinion expressed by the

Vhtt-,,Vdoc.tor. Further, even a daily Wager also earns 3.100/w

 e. .._..per day. in the instant case, the ciaimant is a rniik

vendor by profession and he was depositing the money

to the Bank. He has produced Ex.P.5---Certified Copy of

Ab



10

the Bank Challan. Hence, the income of the claimant at

$100/-- per day as considered by the Tribur1jali:.is:"Very

meager. Hence, his income has to be takaen "

per day and monthly incoineiofi  

income of €45,000/~. Since,  'of 

is 9%, taking into consi€l:e'I'ation  the
claimant is entitled my thei"co.m:;ie11.sation"o1""%.56,700/~
with regard to the   The Tribunai
has  -- towards pain
and suffe:ring';'* expenses and
  expenditure. I am
not   with the other heads of

compensation.=..i~Ience';: the claimant is entitle for the

 eomfae-r1.sa'tion §fr;'i,3s,7oo/- as against '£ the following:
ORDER

The appeal is allowed in part. The claimant is
entitle for the compensation of 11,36,700/– as against

€105,200/~ awarded by the Motor Accident Claims

Av

.1 I

Tribunal. The claimant is entitled for the interest at 6%

PA from the date of the ciaim petition till rea1i.s’at’i0_tI.–

The 1st Resp0ndent–Ir1suran(:e..__Cgrnpany

directed to deposit the enharieed:_:eOmpeiisatior1~..eeitfiafriin ‘

the period of eight weeksefijom “datesv»(ifVV’re_eei1§;t “Of

copy of this order.

 V    Judge

PB