IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.7072/2014 [MV] BETWEEN:
REP. BY VICE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MUSHIRABAD, HYDERABAD.
(BY SRI.D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV.) AND:
SRI P GOPALA RAJU S/O SRI. MUNISWAMYRAJU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.441 OLD POST OFFICE ROAD K.R. PURAM BANGALORE-560 036.
(BY SRI. N GOPALA KRISHNA, ADV.) ... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENT THIS M.F.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.07.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.6360/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,24,140/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The appellant – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the APSRTC’) is before this Court in this appeal being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 8.07.2014 passed in MVC No. 6360/2012 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.
2. The claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a Road Traffic Accident that occurred on 25.08.2012. It is stated that on 25.08.2012, when the claimant was traveling in APSRTC Bus bearing Reg. No.AP-28-Z-2419, the driver of the bus drove in a rash, negligent manner and dashed against the Lorry, due to the said accident the claimant sustained grievous injuries. It is stated that the claimant was immediately shifted to MVJ Hospital at Hosakote and thereafter to Hosmat Hospital at Bangalore. The claimant states that he was aged 58 years as on the date of accident and he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing agricultural work.
3. On issuance of summons, the appellant – Corporation appeared before the Tribunal and filed its objection denying the petition averments. It also contended that the owner and insurer of the lorry are proper and necessary parties to the petition as the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry. The Corporation also contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 and also examined the Doctor as PW.2 and got marked 38 documents. The Tribunal on assessing the material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.5,24,140/- on the following heads :-
The Corporation being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is before this Court in this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant – Corporation and learned counsel for the respondent – claimant. Perused the entire material on record.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the age of the claimant at 60 years, which is against the material on record. He submits that the claimant was aged 61 years and the applicable multiplier would be ‘7’. But the Tribunal has taken the multiplier at ‘9’ which is incorrect. He further submits that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding the medical expenses to the claimant. The claimant had Mediclaim policy and he had taken reimbursement of the entire amount, but stated before the Tribunal that he had taken reimbursement of a sum of Rs.1,58,503/-. The claimant has not produced any documents to show that he has taken reimbursement of the entire medical bills. Thus he prays for reduction of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant would submit that the claimant was aged 60 years as on the date of accident. Ex.P7 - the ration card would indicate that the claimant was aged 49 years as on the date of issuance of ration card i.e., in the year 2001, therefore, from 2001 if it is calculated, as on the date of accident he would be aged 60 years. He further submits that he had taken reimbursement of a sum of Rs.1,58,503/- from Mediclaim policy and that he is claiming only the balance amount in the claim petition. The claimant has stated in the claim petition that he was aged about 58 years and working as agriculturist earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The contention of the appellant that the claimant is aged about 61 years as on the date of accident i.e., in the year 2012 is not supported by any documentary evidence. On the other hand, the claimant has produced Ex.P.7 – the ration card, which was issued in the year 2001. As on the date of issuance of ration card the age of the claimant was 49 years and the accident has taken place in the year 2012 i.e., after 11 years from the date of issuance of ration card, hence the claimant would be aged 60 years as on the date of accident. In the absence of any material to indicate that the claimant was aged 61 years, the age taken by the Tribunal based on Ex.P.7 – the ration card at 60 years is just and proper, which needs no interference. The other contention that, the claimant has not disclosed the amount reimbursed under Mediclaim policy also cannot be accepted. The claimant in his evidence has stated that he has taken the reimbursement of a sum of Rs.1,58,503/- out of Rs.4,71,354/-, hence the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,12,900/- towards medical expenses. There is no material produced to establish that the claimant has taken reimbursement of the entire medical expenses of Rs.4,71,354/-. In the absence of any material to show that the claimant has got the entire amount of medical expenses reimbursed, awarding of medical expenses after deducting the admitted reimbursement is just and proper. The insurer which has taken the contention that the claimant has taken reimbursement of entire medical expenses failed to prove the same by producing any material evidence. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that even though the appellant initially challenged the liability, since the award is satisfied in respect of other claim petitions arising out of the same accident, the same would not be pressed in this appeal. The impugned judgment and award is neither perverse nor erroneous so as to warrant interference. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. The amount in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE NG*CT:bms