IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9757/2010 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3592/2010 (MV) IN MFA.No.9757/2010:
BETWEEN:
SRI B.H.CHANDRAPPA S/O. HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT BASIHALLY VILLAGE HOSADURGA TALUK NOW R/AT GUMASTHARA COLONY CHITRADURGA TOWN ... APPELLANT (BY SRI V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE LAKSHMI BAZAR BAFNA BUILDING CHITRADURGA REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER 2. SRI M.S.SHIVAKUMAR S/O. M. SHIVAMURTHY MAJOR R/AT 1ST CROSS V.P.EXTENSION CHITRADURGA ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/C/O DATED 06.01.2014) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.12.2009 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DVN.) AND ADDITIONAL MACT, CHITRADURGA IN MVC.NO.204/2007.
IN MFA.No.3592/2010:
BETWEEN:
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, LAKSHMI BAZAR BAFNA BUILDING NOW REP. BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE NO.144, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ... APPELLANT (BY SRI A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI B.H.CHANDRAPPA S/O. HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/AT BASIHALLI VILLAGE HOSADURGA TALUK NOW R/AT GUMASTHARA COLONY CHITRADURGA TOWN 2. SRI M.S.SHIVAKUMAR S/O. M. SHIVAMURTHY MAJOR R/AT 1ST CROSS V.P.EXTENSION CHITRADURGA ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRABHUSWAMY N. FOR SRI V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATES FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.12.2009 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DVN.) AND ADDITIONAL MACT, CHITRADURGA IN MVC.NO.204/2007.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T MFA.No.9757/2010 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 14.12.2009 in MVC.No.204/2007, whereby a global compensation of Rs.45,000/- was awarded with interest @ 6% per annum.
2. MFA.No.3592/2010 is filed by the Insurance Company questioning the liability, on the ground that there is no nexus between the alleged injuries sustained by the claimant and the accident in question.
3. It is the case of the claimant that on 06.01.2007, he boarded a bus bearing registration No.KA-16/B-6464 at Madadakere village to go to Hosadurga and at about 8.00 a.m. near Hosadurga, the driver of the said bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and moved on the pit and road humps with carelessness, on account of which the rod which was kept as a support to the top of the bus was broken and fell on the claimant, who was sitting on the back side seat of the bus. Due to the said accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and he was immediately admitted to the Government hospital at Hosadurga, wherein he took first aid treatment. Thereafter, he was taken to the Government hospital at Chitradurga, wherein he was an inpatient for a period of 14 days. It is the further case of the claimant that due to the said accident, he sustained compression fracture of LI vertebral body, fracture of right clavicle, fracture of right calcaneal bone and belt and plaster was affixed to the clavicle and LI bones and that he suffered permanent disability.
4. It is the further case of the claimant that he was doing agricultural work and he was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the said accident, he is unable to do agricultural work etc. and he is unable to walk, sit and stand properly and he is having difficulty in attending the nature calls.
5. Before the Tribunal, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked the documents as per Exs.P1 to P24. The claim was disputed by the respondents and on their behalf RW.1 and RW.2 were examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were got marked.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company.
7. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that on 06.01.2007, when the claimant was traveling in a bus bearing registration No.KA-16/B-6464, the driver of the said bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and drove on the pit and road humps carelessly and due to the same, the rod which was supported to the top of the bus broke and fell on him, who was sitting on the backside seat of the bus. In the said accident, the claimant sustained compression fracture of LI vertebral body, fracture of right clavicle, fracture of right calcaneal bone and belt and plaster was affixed to the clavicle and LI bones. To support his contention with regard to the injuries sustained by the claimant, Ex.P3-wound certificate, Ex.P5-discharge card and Exs.P22 to P24-X-rays are relied upon. However, the Doctor who treated the claimant has not been examined.
8. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that the evidence of the IMV Inspector, who was examined as RW.2 has not been appreciated by the Tribunal in a proper perspective and therefore, the Tribunal erred in holding that the claimant sustained injuries because of the rod attached to the window fell on the claimant. Therefore, he submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal holding the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation is erroneous. It is further contended that no pipe is broken as per the evidence of RW.2 and no witnesses are examined to support the case of the claimant and therefore, it is submitted that the Insurance Company be absolved from indemnifying the owner of the vehicle.
9. On a perusal of Ex.P1-FIR and Ex.P2-complaint, it clearly goes to show that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus in question, wherein it is stated that the rod attached to the side of the bus fell on the claimant and due to which, he sustained injuries. The evidence of RW.2 does not indicate that the accident did not occur as stated by the claimant. Even the IMV report is also not marked inspite of examining RW.2. In that view of the matter, the contention raised by the Insurance Company cannot be accepted and the same is rejected.
10. According to Ex.P3–wound certificate, the injuries mentioned at Sl.Nos.1 to 3 are stated to be grievous in nature. It is noticed that there was fracture of right clavicle and fracture of right calcaneal bone. Even though the Doctor is not examined, the said wound certificate mentioning the fracture sustained by the claimant cannot be ignored. According to the discharge card, the claimant was inpatient for a period of 14 days. The Tribunal has awarded a global compensation of Rs.45,000/- including the medical bills of Rs.1,683/-. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, I deem it appropriate to award a global compensation of Rs.75,000/- as against Rs.45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
11. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, I pass the following order:
i) MFA.No.9757/2010 is partly allowed.
ii) The judgment and award dated 14.12.2009 passed by the Court of II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn.) and Additional MACT at Chitradurga is modified.
iii) The appellant-claimant is entitled for a global compensation of Rs.75,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit as against Rs.45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
iv) MFA.No.3592/2010 is dismissed.
v) The Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/- JUDGE LB