Partly allowed

Sri Manohar S v. Sri Abdul Khader Sait

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2014MFA/3491/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, enhancing compensation from Rs.25,000 to Rs.1,52,000 for a motor accident victim suffering permanent disability. The court assessed damages for pain and suffering, medical expenses, and loss of future income.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.1,52,000 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.

Sri Manohar S Vs Sri Abdul Khader Sait — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^st DAY OF MARCH 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH

¶6

M.F.A.No.3491 / 2011 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

Manohar S. s/o Subbarayan, Age 32 years, Occ: Painter R/o No.73, 4^th Cross, Pillanna Garden, 1^st Stage, St.Thomas Town, Bangalore.

¶9

.. Appellant

¶10

( By Sri Suresh M. Latur, Advocate )

¶11

AND :

¶12

Abdul Khader Sait, A.Sattar & Sons QTY, No.35, SJP Road, Bangalore.

¶13

The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. D.No.3, No.8, I Floor, K.S.C. Building, Church Street, Bangalore.

¶14

.. Respondents

¶15

( By Sri K.N.Srinivas, Advocate for R-2 )

¶16

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V.Act against the judgment and award dated 1.6.2010 passed in

¶17

¶18

MVC.No.7758/2007 by the Prl.Chief Judge, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶19

This Appeal coming on for Admission this day, the Court delivered the following :

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation is against the judgment and award passed by the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, MACT, Bangalore, in MVC.No.7758/200, dated 1^st June 2010.

¶22

It is the case of the claimant that he sustained injuries on account of the accident that occurred on 3.7.2006 at about 9.40 a.m. near Cooks Town road junction, at Frazer town, Bangalore, due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motorbike bearing registration No.KA-04-V-7429. He filed claim petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

¶23

On the matter being contested by the respondentinsurer, the Tribunal raising as many as three issues, after

¶24

¶25

enquiry, holding that the accident was due to negligence of the rider of motorcycle in question, awarded total compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being not satisfied, the claimant/appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel representing the parties.

¶27

As per the medical evidence, claimant has sustained fracture of hand palate, fracture of maxillae and mandible bilateral parazymphyia. As per the evidence of the doctor, claimant has suffered 30% facial deformity, 35% speech deformity and there is also permanent loss of three teeth, which comes to 20% disability. As per Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, the maximum amount that can be awarded under the head pain and suffering, general damages and disability is Rs.5,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses and since claimant has suffered three injuries, he is awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses. In so far as loss of income due to disability is

¶28

¶29

concerned, taking the annual income of the claimant at Rs.36,000/- and disability at 20%, he is awarded a sum of Rs.1,32,000/- towards loss of income due to disability. Thus, in all the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,52,000/instead of Rs.25,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal.

¶30

In modification of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs.1,52,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶31

The insurer to deposit the amount within three months.

¶32

Appeal is allowed in part accordingly.

¶33

bk/

Sri Manohar S v. Sri Abdul Khader Sait

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manohar S v. Sri Abdul Khader Sait

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Geetha Mohan Vs Mr R Ramakrishna

Kar Road Transport Corpn Vs Nagaraj K

Smt Lalithamma Vs the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd,.

Sri Chikkanna Vs M/S Balaji Painters & Decorators

Sulaiman, Vs Sachidananda Shetty

Sulaiman, Vs Sachidananda Shetty