Dismissed

Shivashankar @ Shivakumar v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2015MFA/1636/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed an appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Upholding the Tribunal's award, the court held there was no justifiable ground to enhance the compensation of Rs.12,55,400/- as the quantum on various heads was not arbitrary.

What did the court decide?

The appeal for enhancement of compensation is dismissed.

Shivashankar @ Shivakumar Vs Reliance General… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2015)

¶1

MFA No��

¶2

��

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2015

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.1636 OF 2014(MV)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

SHIVASHANKAR @ SHIVAKUMAR S/O THIMMEGOWDA H R AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O HALEUTHPATHIHALLI SANYASIHALLI POST KASABA HOBLI, BELUR TALUK

¶10

AT PRESENT:

¶11

C/O THIMMEGOWDA S/O NANJEGOWDA HALEKOPPALU VILLAGE DUDDA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶12

... APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI: GIRISH B BALADARE, ADV)

¶14

AND

¶15

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD BRANCH OFFICE HASSAN-573201.

¶16

MFA No��

¶17

��

¶18

H M RUDRESHA

¶19

S/O MARULASIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS NO 111, HAGARE VILLAGE & POST BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI: D VIJAY KUMAR, ADV FOR R1, R2 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.263/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-1, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

The appellant dissatisfied with the amount

¶26

of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, has filed this appeal seeking enhancement.

¶27

2. The facts reveal that in an accident

¶28

that occurred on 09.10.2011 due to the rash and

¶29

MFA No��

¶30

��

¶31

negligent driving of maxi cab bearing registration No.KA-30-1482, the appellant sustained severe injuries and disability, therefore, made a claim for compensation. After recording the evidence, the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.12,55,400/- as compensation with interest at 9% p.a. Dissatisfied with the said sum, the present appeal is filed.

¶32

Heard the learned Counsel for both

¶33

the parties.

¶34

Learned Counsel for the appellant

¶35

submits that the Tribunal has granted meager compensation for pain, suffering and mental agony, attendant charges and loss of amenities. Therefore, it is his submission that each of these heads need enhanced compensation.

¶36

On the other hand, learned Counsel

¶37

for the insurer submits that the compensation awarded on the head loss of dependency is on the higher side. The Tribunal has calculated more

¶38

MFA No��

¶39

��

¶40

salary though it was not acceptable, therefore, no grounds are made out to admit this appeal.

¶41

The injured-appellant was the driver.

¶42

He has produced the driving licence at Ex.P12. Despite the disability suffered by him, he has not intimated the authority to discontinue his driving licence. Therefore, it has to be assumed that he is continuing driving despite the disability he has suffered. He has produced the salary certificate at Ex.P10, wherein the salary of the appellant is shown at Rs.16,000/per month. The Tribunal has considered his

¶43

income at Rs.10,000/- per month. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that even in the lok adalth, without any document, the income of the driver is considered to an extent of

¶44

Rs.8,000/- per month. Thereby, the income of driver has to be considered at Rs.8,000/- per month, the excess amount towards loss of

¶45

MFA No��

¶46

��

¶47

dependency would be approximately morethan

¶48

Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶49

In this context, the compensation

¶50

awarded under other heads has to be taken into consideration. Even in case, if a sum of Rs.20,000/- is enhanced for pain, suffering and mental agony, sum of Rs.48,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period, Rs.13,000/towards loss of amenities and Rs.10,000/towards attendant charges, the loss of dependency is exceeding in a sum of Rs.1,20,000/hence, I do not think the appellant needs any enhancement under other heads. In the circumstances, taking into consideration the compensation awarded on each of the heads and overall compensation payable to the appellant, I do not find any justifiable grounds to admit this appeal.

¶51

MFA No��

¶52

��

¶53

Consequently, the appeal fails and it is

¶54

accordingly dismissed.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

*bgn/-

Shivashankar @ Shivakumar v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivashankar @ Shivakumar v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

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

Case details

Similar cases

State by P S I Vs v Ramesh Bairy

The State of Karnataka Vs Venkatesh S/O Veeranagappa

Gopal K.T. @ Gopi Vs State by Kunigal Police

The Managing Director Vs Sri Basavaiah

Smt Jyothi W/O Late Ragavendra Vs M K Shivananjaiah

Sri Mohan Rao Vs a Saravanan