AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—1. These two appeals respectively by the insurer and claimant are directed against the impugned common judgment and award dated 4th July 2009 passed in MVC No. 7111/2008 on the file of the VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bangalore City (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short).
By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,41,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization as against the claim made by the claimant, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.
Case of the insurer in MFA No. 117/2010 is that Tribunal has committed an error in not considering Exs.P3, P10, P11 and P12 while allowing the claim petition in part. Therefore the impugned judgment and award is liable to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded back to Tribunal for reconsider afresh.
Whereas, case of the claimant is that quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and it requires enhancement by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore both felt necessitated to present these two appeals.
The case of the claimant is that, he was aged about 37 years at the time of accident and hale and healthy. He met with an accident on 15.1.2008 at about 6.45 p.m. When the claimant was riding Hero Honda Splendor bearing Reg. KA-42: H-2897 on Kanakapura-Ramanagara Road Near Gendekere Village, the rider of another Hero Honda motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA-42: H-3579 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant and ran the vehicle on the back of the claimant. The claimant sustained several grievous injuries. The claimant took treatment at BGS Global Hospital, Bangalore and underwent a surgery by spending more than Rs. 5,00,000/- towards medical, conveyance and nourishment. He was an agriculturist and also working as real estate agent and milk vendor and earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- p.m. He lost earning capacity and is put to great financial hardship. Therefore, taking all these aspects into consideration, the claimant has filed a claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation against the insurer and owner.
The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The claimant in order to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1, Dr. Mallinath G as PW2 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P13. The insurer got marked documents as Exs.R1 and R2.
The Tribunal after hearing both the sides and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a compensation of Rs. 7,41,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, both insurer and claimant felt necessitated to file these appeals respectively.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and learned counsel appearing for the insurer.
Learned counsel Sri A.N. Krishna Swamy, appearing for the insurer at the outset submitted that Tribunal has committed miscarriage of justice in not considering the documentary evidence Ex. P3 - IMV report, Ex. P10-Medical Bills, Ex. P11-Inpatient, outpatient record and Ex. P12-Discharge Summary (Radiologist report). The Tribunal has not considered the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and has not given proper reasons for allowing the claim petition in part, which is contrary to law and the matter requires reconsideration and hence, a direction may be issued to the jurisdictional Tribunal to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law more particularly, Exs.P3, P10 to P12 with an opportunity to both the parties to adduce their evidence and all the contention may be left upon for both the parties.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for the claimant contended that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified as the quantum of compensation awarded is inadequate and it requires enhancement. Further he fairly submitted that there is no proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence by the Tribunal. Therefore, he submitted that an appropriate direction may be issued to the Jurisdictional Tribunal to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law.
After careful submission of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perusal of the impugned Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and after critical evaluation of the entire records available on file, particularly Exs.P3, P10, P11 and P12, we of the view that there is no proper appreciation of these documents by the Tribunal. There is no discussion about the IMV report -Ex. P3, Ex. P10-Medical bills, Ex. P11-Inpatient and Outpatient record, Ex. P12 - discharge summary (Radiologist report) and the reasoning given is contrary to the said documents. Therefore as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the insurer and after perusal of these records. Hence, we are of the view that the matter requires for reconsideration.
In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties as stated supra, without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, to meet the ends of justice and to safeguard the interest of both the parties and having regard to the facts of the case referred above, the appeals filed by the insurer and claimant respectively are allowed.
The impugned judgment and award dated 4th July 2009 passed in MVC No. 7111/2008 on the file of VI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT at Bengaluru City is hereby set aside.
The matter stands remitted back to the Jurisdictional Tribunal for consideration afresh and to decide the matter in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to both the parties and dispose of the matter as early as possible in any event, within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties.
Further, claimant and insurer are permitted to file necessary applications for adducing additional, oral and documents within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. In the event of such application being filed, the Tribunal shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders and dispose of the matter as stated supra.
Without waiting for notice from the Tribunal, the claimant and insurer are directed to appear before the Tribunal personally or through their counsel on 29th March 2016 at 11.00 a.m to collect necessary date of further hearing.
Amount deposited by the insurer in MFA No. 117/2010 is directed to be transmitted to the Jurisdictional MACT immediately.
In turn, the Jurisdictional Tribunal is directed to redeposit the said amount in any Nationalized Bank or Scheduled Bank, subject to the outcome of the Judgment to be passed by the Tribunal.
Office is directed to return the entire LCR to the Jurisdictional Tribunal, immediately.
All contentions urged by both the parties are left open.