IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A.No.7588/2015 (MV) BETWEEN SRI PUNITH KUMAR S/O LAKANNA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT No.11 14TH MAIN ROAD, INDIRA COLONY NEAR CHANDRA LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 040.
(By Sri SHIVAKUMAR P, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SANTOSH RAM M. No.49/12, 3RD MAIN BRUNDAVAN NAGAR CHIKKADUGODI TAVAREKERE BENGALURU – 560 029.
2. UNITE INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. No.24, SAIRAM TOWERS K.PUTTANACHETTY ROAD 5TH MAIN ROAD CHAMARJAPET BENGALURU – 560 018.
…APPELLANT …RESPONDENTS (By Sri L SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 R-1 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.01.2015 PASSED IN MVC No.2234/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and award dated 24.01.2015 passed in MVC No.2234/2013 by the XX Additional Small Causes Judge, MACT, Bengaluru.
2. It is the case of petitioner-claimant that on 29.07.2012 at about 3.00 P.M. when he was sitting on the extreme left side of the road near Sompura Bridge, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, a motorcycle bearing reg. No.KA-01-EQ-8484 came via Nayandahalli towards Anepalya and being ridden in a rash and negligent manner dashed against petitioner due to which he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was taken to Abhaya Hospital and again took treatment at Suguna Hospital and Appollo, BGS hospital, Mysore as inpatient.
He claims having spent a sum of `4,00,000/- towards medical expenses and that he was hale and healthy before the accident but suffered disability due to the impact of injuries suffered in the accident and he was earning salary of `6,000/- per month and `10,000/- through photography. The accident happened when he was taking snaps of sceneries at Nice road. Date of accident 29.07.2012 at 3 P.M. and claimed compensation of `12,00,000/-.
3. The Tribunal after considering the assertions and denial of material propositions and the material available on record framed issues. The reasons assigned by the court for adjudicating issue No.1 regarding accident is available at paragraph 13 and also date of incidence being 29.07.2012 and the complaint came to be lodged on 25.11.2012 and also learned Member relies on column No.4 of the charge sheet regarding non explanation for the delay caused and accordingly investigating officer blindly filed the charge sheet. Claimant also not produced the documents of 3 to 4 hospitals. The Doctor who was examined as PW-2 has told that since the injured came to their hospital after 25 days they have not registered MLC in their hospital. It is the explanation which the Doctor gives for not referring MLC. The concept of negligence in common parlance means lack of legal duty to take care of oneself and others. The delay in registration of FIR, deviated version in the complaint lodged by a third person, locus standi of the complainant cannot be exclusive factors for arriving at a just compensation. Before the Tribunal, doctor is examined and Apollo hospital document is Ex.P.16 wherein it is mentioned as “History of RTA”. Thus, the Tribunal should have invested its concentration for ascertaining the document Ex.P.16 and there is no discussion regarding injuries and their impact whether it resulted in variation of the income earning capacity or whether in life style. So the case was registered and charge sheet is filed, spot mahazar Ex.P.5, wound certificate all available with learned member focuses his attention mainly on delay in filing FIR. In the context and circumstances it appears that the Tribunal has concentrated on the disposal of the matter rather than ascertaining whether the case warranted to ascertain whether it required just compensation or otherwise. The Tribunal instead of disposing of the matter on the basis of delay in registering FIR and connected aspects should have focused on the essential concepts of required aspects of accident, negligence, injuries/death, notional income, age and related factors.
Thus, the finding in its present form in Judgment and award dated 24.01.2015 passed in MVC No.2234/2013 by the XX Additional Small Causes Judge, MACT, Bengaluru, is set aside.
The matter is remanded to Tribunal for adjudicating the matter afresh by considering the reason for injury, disability if any, other than only on the delay in filing of FIR and exclusively concentrated only on charge sheet.
Appellant and respondent shall appear before the Tribunal on 09.08.2017 without waiting for further notice.
Sd/- JUDGE SBN