Partly allowed

Sri.Devaraj S/O Uddand Nayak v. Karunakar Nayar

Karnataka HC19 Aug 2017MFA/22234/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant S appealed for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for injury sustained in a road accident. The High Court held that while no future loss of income was applicable, compensation for loss of amenities was warranted due to the injury affecting his ability to teach.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation from Rs. 1,49,000 to Rs. 1,69,000 with an additional Rs. 20,000 for loss of amenities.

Sri.Devaraj S/O Uddand Nayak Vs Karunakar Nayar — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

M.F.A.No.22234/2009 (MV)

¶2

: 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶7

MFA NO.22234 OF 2009 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI DEVARAJ S/O. UDDAND NAYAK, AGE 58 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR COLLAGE LECTURER, R/O. MARNAD, MADIKERI, KODAGU, NOW R/AT: HICHAKAR, TQ. ANKOLA, DIST. KARWAR.

¶10

... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI SIDDAPPA S. SAJJAN, ADV. )

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 KARUNAKAR NAYAR

¶14

S/O. LATE KUMARAN HARROOF,

¶15

AGE 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, D/7-1, BENGAL ESTATE ROAD,

¶16

33 THAN, MAHARASTRA (OWNER OF TRUCK NO.MH-04/BG-6610

¶17

STAR ROADWAYS)

¶18

2 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO, LTD., REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER,

¶19

1^ST FLOOR, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, GHOKALE ROAD, NAWAPAD, THANA, MAHARASTRA.

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(SRI. LAXMAN B. MANNODDAR, ADV. FOR R2 ; R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.04.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.276/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE IST ADDL. MACT, KARWAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR

¶23

M.F.A.No.22234/2009 (MV)

¶24

: 2 :

¶25

COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The appellant was the claimant before the I Addl.

¶29

M.A.C.T., Karwar (henceforth referred to as ‘The Tribunal’, for brevity), whose claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was allowed in part awarding a compensation of a sum of `1,49,000/- with interest thereupon. Seeking enhancement of the said quantum of compensation, the claimant has preferred this appeal.

¶30

The grounds taken up by the

¶31

appellant/claimant in his memorandum of appeal as well the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, the Tribunal below has not awarded the compensation under the head of ‘loss of amenities’ when in fact due to the facture of the tibia and the alleged disability, the claimant is not in a position to stand in the class room as lecturer for a longer hour.

¶32

M.F.A.No.22234/2009 (MV)

¶33

: 3 :

¶34

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

¶35

respondent - Insurance Company in his argument submitted that, considering the circumstance of the case, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal below is reasonable, which warrants no interference at the hands of this Court.

¶36

The present appeal being the claimant’s appeal

¶37

and the respondents having not preferred either crossobjection or a counter appeal, the question of occurrence of the accident on the date, time and place alleged by the claimant and also the alleged fault on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is not in dispute. Therefore, the question of occurrence of the accident and the alleged liability of the respondents to pay compensation to the injured claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the accident need not be re-analysed again. The only question that remains to be considered is about the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal below.

¶38

M.F.A.No.22234/2009 (MV)

¶39

: 4 :

¶40

5. The Tribunal below has awarded a

¶41

compensation under the following heads and with the

¶42

sums shown against them:

¶43

	Amount(`)
TowardsPainand suffering	40,000.00
Towardsloss ofearnedleave	80,000.00
Towards conveyance	10,000.00
Towards attendant charges	5,000.00
Towardsnutritiousfood	1,000.00
Towardsmedicalexpenses	13,000.00
Total	1,49,000.00

¶44

Having perused the quantum of compensation

¶45

awarded by the Tribunal below, in the light of the injury which was a fracture of right tibia and in the circumstance

¶46

of the case, I am of the view that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all the heads mentioned above in no way can be meager or lesser than a reasonable compensation in any manner. As such, under the existing heads, under which the compensation have been awarded, there is no reason for enhancement of the same.

¶47

M.F.A.No.22234/2009 (MV)

¶48

: 5 :

¶49

However, considering the nature of alleged

¶50

avocation of the claimant and the nature of the injury sustained by him in the accident, I am of the view that though he may not be entitled for any compensation under the head of future loss of income, however, he is entitled for a reasonable compensation under the head of loss of amenities. As such, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below is required to be enhanced by a sum of ` 20,000/- under the head of ‘loss of amenities’.

¶51

Barring the above, the claimant is not entitled

¶52

for enhancement of compensation under any other heads.

¶53

Thus, the claimant is only entitled for an enhancement of a sum of ` 20,000/-.

¶54

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

¶55

order:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

The appeal is allowed in part.

¶58

M.F.A.No.22234/2009 (MV)

¶59

: 6 :

¶60

The judgment and award dated 30.04.2009 passed by the I Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karwar, in MVC No.276/2006 is modified to the extent that the compensation awarded at 1,49,000/- is enhanced and fixed at ** 1,69,000/-** (Rupees One lakh sixty nine thousand only)

¶61

The rest of the order of the Tribunal with respect to fixing the liability upon the respondents and directing them to deposit the awarded amount, awarding the interest, its rate, terms regarding release of the amount awarded, shall remain unaltered.

¶62

*Svh/-

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

Sri.Devaraj S/O Uddand Nayak v. Karunakar Nayar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Devaraj S/O Uddand Nayak v. Karunakar Nayar

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

Kempanna Dundappa Bagewadi Vs Nashima W/O Hasanasab Kamate

Mallappa S/O Shiddappa Kajagar Vs Mehabubshah R Makandar

Sri.Shekar S/O Pandurang Patil Vs Sri.Satish

Krishan S/O Venkappa Arenad, Vs Yallappa Bharamappa Madiwalar

The Divisional Manager Vs Huligevva W/O Channappa

Hanamawwa W/O Yallappa Madamgeri, Vs Kallappa S/O. Shrikant Kamble