IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY M.F.A. NO 3701 OF 2016 (MV) BETWEEN:
Reshma Begum P.K. D/o Hederali Aged about 26 years R/at 31/1 ,1st Main Road, Valmikinagar Bangalore 560 018 (BY SRI. Udaya Kumar R.L. ADV.,) AND:
... APPELLANT 1. Mukund P.R. No.1393/257, 1st stage, BEML Layout, Rajarajeshwarinagar, Bangalore 560 098 2. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., No.36, Opp. Thirtha Asram, Kothapura Main Road, J./P.Nagar, 7th Phase, Bangalore 560 078 … RESPONDENTS (By Sri O Mahesh- Adv., )) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2552/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 7th ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER-MACT-3, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of compensation challenging the judgment and award dated 19.1.2016, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes at Bangalore(SCCH-03), in MVC No.2552/2013.
2. It is the case of the appellant that when he was proceeding as a pillion rider in a Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-HP-7421 on the left side of the Jawaharlala Nehru Road, Near Bayalu Ranga Mandira, Bengaluru, a car bearing Reg. No.KA 41 8817 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in a high speed and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result of which the claimant fell down and sustained multiple grievous injuries damaging the motor cycle and shifted to R.C. Hospital and then to Siddalingappa Hospital. Therefore, the appellant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.38,200/-. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 sought to dismiss the appeal, as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper.
4. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal. The accident and the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant is not in dispute. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was aged about 23 years at the time of accident and was working as a Department Manager at Trent Hypermarket Ltd., Bangalore Branch and earning Rs.22,061/-. On account of the injuries and disability suffered by him in the accident, he was terminated from the work which is evident from Ex.P.31 termination letter. The employer stated therein that the injured is not attending to her work and remained absent between 8.3.2013 and 3.6.20123. The Tribunal has not considered the same. If the tribunal had considered the same, the claimant would have got considerable compensation. The Tribunal has not assigned any reasons as to why it has not taken into consideration Ex.P.31 while granting compensation.
5. The prayer made by the appellant is for enhancement after setting aside the judgment and award of the MACT. The only dispute is that the Tribunal has not considered Ex.P.31 while assessing the compensation. The same is required to be considered by the trial court.
6. With the above observation, the appeal is remitted to the tribunal for considering the matter afresh in accordance with law.
All contentions are kept open and the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal without waiting for any notice on 09/01/2018.
Sd/- JUDGE Psg*