Partly allowed

Sri. Venkatesh S/O Venkanagouda Rayanagoudar v. Sri. Gadigeppa S/O Bhimappa Kanannavar

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2017MFA/23764/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A limited first appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, sought enhancement of compensation under Section 163A by challenging the use of a multiplier of 17 instead of 18. The High Court found an error in the multiplier and granted additional compensation. Denied judgment second-best. The appeal was partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Award of additional compensation of Rs. 5,400 along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim till the date of payment.

Sri. Venkatesh S/O Venkanagouda Rayanagoudar Vs Sri… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.23764/2010 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. Venkatesh S/o Venkanagouda Rayannagoudar, Age: 28 years, Occupation: Conductor in Private Bus Agriculture, Resident of Ramdurg, Taluk: Ramdurg District: Belgaum.

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(By Shri K.Anand Kumar, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Sri. Gadigeppa S/o Bhimappa Kanannavar Age: Major, Occupation: Business, Resident of Kenchalapurkoppa, Taluk: Saundatti, District: Belgaum.

¶13

The Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office, Ramdeo Galli, Belgaum.

¶14

… RESPONDENTS

¶15

(By Shri Aruna R Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent-2, Respondent no.1 served)

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated 08.02.2010 passed in MVC No.1247/2009 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Belgaum, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶18

This appeal coming on for admission, this day, the court delivered the following:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent.

¶21

The appellant is before this court on a limited ground namely, that he was aged 25 when he had met with a road accident and he had claimed compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal having proceeded to award compensation in terms of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, had adopted the multiplier ‘17’ instead of ‘18’ and further has awarded nominal amounts in terms of the Schedule to the MV Act insofar as other heads of compensation are concerned. The appellant is seeking to question the same.

¶22

: 3 :

¶23

It is found that the Tribunal has not committed any error insofar as the award made under several heads.

¶24

Though the learned counsel for the respondent would

¶25

interject to state that the loss of earning during the period of treatment being awarded in a sum of Rs.3,000/- is not in accordance with law, the same being a nominal amount need not be eschewed in an appeal filed by the claimant. The Insurance Company is not in appeal and therefore, is left untouched.

¶26

Insofar as the multiplier is concerned, since the appropriate multiplier would be ‘18’, the Tribunal has committed an error in adopting ‘17’ as the multiplier. If multiplier of ‘18’ is adopted, the appellant would be entitled to total additional compensation of Rs.5,400/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which shall be awarded to him along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim till the date of payment.

¶27

The appeal is allowed in part.

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

Sri. Venkatesh S/O Venkanagouda Rayanagoudar v. Sri. Gadigeppa S/O Bhimappa Kanannavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Venkatesh S/O Venkanagouda Rayanagoudar v. Sri. Gadigeppa S/O Bhimappa Kanannavar

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

Rasoolbi S/O Fakirsab Yendigeri, Vs the Divisional Manager

Narashingappa Hanumanthappa Hebbal @ Hulamani Vs Adansab S/O Hajartsab Baniband

Somayya S/O Gurusiddayya Vs M/S Namaskar Road Ways Pvt. Ltd.

Bhimappa Ramappa Dasa Age 40 Years, Vs Govind Bandhu Jadhav Age Major, Occ Not Known

Davalsab S/O Imamsab Hebasur Vs Mehaboobsab S/O Abdulkareem Khaji

Bharama Ningappa Kundannavar, Vs Dilip Mohan Shewale