Keshavamurthy vs The Manager

The appellant who is the claimant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment dated 24.05.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.5279/2008 by the 21st Addl.MACT, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'' for short), has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

The appellant filed the claim petition contending that on 20.05.2008 at about 11.30 a.m., while he was crossing the road near R.T.Nagar, a Tata Sumo bearing registration No.KA-41/5551, driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the claimant. Due to which, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to a private Nursing Home and thereafter, he was shifted to Columbia Asia Hospital, Bengaluru and took treatment in the said Hospital as an inpatient. He has sustained fracture of right clavicle, fracture of left femur and subdural haematoma and spent more than Rs.3 lakhs for treatment. Hence, he sought for compensation of Rs.25 lakhs.

In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, both the respondents appeared and filed the written statement and they have denied the averments made in the claim petition.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the necessary issues. After trial, the Tribunal held that due to rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo, the accident occurred and claimant sustained injuries, therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation. With regard to the quantum of the compensation is concerned, the claimant has sustained fracture of right clavicle, fracture of left femur and sub dural haematoma. He was an inpatient for a period of 10 days. The Doctor who treated the claimant, assessed the disability to the extent of 20% to the whole body. The Tribunal taking into consideration the injuries sustained and sufferings undergone, awarded compensation a sum of Rs.3,65,171/- with 6% interest p.a. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has preferred this appeal.

During the pendency of this appeal, the claimant-appellant filed an application I.A.1/14 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC seeking permission to raise additional grounds by producing additional documents to the effect that subsequent to the disposal of the claim petition, the claimant has undergone surgery for hip replacement and sought for reimbursement of the medial bill to an extent of Rs.2,82,913/- and he has also produced some bills as additional documents. Hence, sought for enhancement of compensation.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance company argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair compensation. He argued that after lapse of 5 years of the accident, the claimant has undergone one more surgery of hip replacement and filed I.A.1/14 for production of additional documents. However, no documents have been produced to show that under what circumstance, he has undergone surgery of hip replacement after 5 years of the accident. The opinion of the Doctor was also not furnished and whether he met with another accident during that period was also not known and therefore, the additional documents produced by the claimant cannot be considered at this stage, as the same are required to be proved by leading evidence. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the I.A.No.1/2014.

After perusal of the records, it is disclosed that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 20.05.2008 and sustained grievous injuries as stated supra. He was aged about 68 years as on date of accident. The Tribunal taking into consideration all the relevant materials, awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.3,65,171/- under different heads. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant has preferred this appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, he has undergone one more surgery for hip replacement and therefore, he filed an application in I.A.1/14 along with the affidavit and claimed additional compensation. The said application has been objected.

Hence, I am of the opinion that unless the additional documents are proved by leading evidence, the compensation amount cannot be enhanced. Therefore, the matter may be remanded back to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter on the additional documents produced by the claimant.

Accordingly, I pass the following order:- (i) Appeal is allowed.

(ii) The judgment and award dated 24.05.2012 passed in MVC No.5279/2008 is modified.

(iii) The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter with regard to the additional documents produced by the appellant and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

(iv) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is undisturbed.

(v) Both the parties are to be given an opportunity to lead evidence and thereafter, the Tribunal shall pass fresh orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(vi) Office to send the original records along with I.A.1/14 and additional documents to the Tribunal.

(vii) Parties to appear before the Tribunal on 12.06.2017 without any further notice.