Partly allowed

Shabnam W/O Sohrab Manocheri v. Malikjan B Mulla

Karnataka HC9 Mar 2020MFA/102633/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in finding contributory negligence against the scooter-riding appellant solely based on a police sketch without examining defendant witnesses. Consequently, the 20% deduction was set aside, and an addition of Rs. 20,000 for future medical expenses was awarded.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed; the 20% negligence deduction is reversed; an additional Rs. 20,000 for future medical expenses is awarded, raising the total to Rs. 7,52,000.

Shabnam W/O Sohrab Manocheri Vs Malikjan B Mulla — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF MARCH 2020

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

M.F.A. NO.102633/2015 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

SHABNAM W/O SOHRAB MANOOCHERI AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BEAUTY PARLOR-CUMHOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MEHER MANSION, 1^ST FLOOR, 2^ND MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, SADHASHIVA NAGAR, BELAGAVI.

¶10

... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SANJAY S KATAGERI, ADV.)

¶12

AND

¶13

MALIKJAN B. MULLA, AGED ABOUT: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,

¶14

R/O: PLOT NO.1407/3, VINAYAK NAGAR,

¶15

SWAMINATH COLONY, BELAGAVI

¶16

(OWNER OF TATA ACE VEHICLE NO.KA-22/B-3760)

¶17

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MAHADEV PLAZA CTS NO.10719

¶18

SY.NO.1367/A, NEAR KOLHAPUR CIRCLE,

¶19

NEHRU NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590 018

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.G.N.RAICHUR, ADV. FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.02.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.919/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER FAST TRACK COURT-III AT BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

: 2 :

¶24

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, M.I.ARUN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

Aggrieved by the order passed in M.V.C.

¶26

No.919/2013 dated 16.02.2015 by FTC-III Court,

¶27

Belagavi, petitioner therein has preferred this appeal.

¶28

The brief facts of the case are on 09.02.2012

¶29

at about 08:00 p.m., the appellant was proceeding on a scooter bearing registration No.KA-22/L-1222 on Belagavi Khanapur road at Udyambhag near Shagun garden, Belagavi. At that time, the Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.KA-22/B-3760 came from Udyambhag and suddenly took a right turn which resulted in an accident. The driver of the Tata Ace vehicle and the appellant had valid licences. The said Tata Ace vehicle was duly insured with the 2^nd respondent. Due to the said accident, the appellant suffered grievous injuries to her right leg as follows:

¶30

: 3 :

¶31

“1) Pain and swelling on the right knee and upper part of skin of tibia movements painful.

¶32

2) Abrasion on right hand dorsom of hand.

¶33

3) Fracture proximal end of right tibia with interartiocular extension of posterior noted.”

¶34

Hence, she preferred M.V.C. No.919/2013. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that both the driver of Tata Ace vehicle and the appellant herein were responsible for the accident and has held the contributory negligence and part of the appellant herein at 20%. Taking into consideration the income, age, injuries and future loss of income and the permanent disability suffered by the appellant herein, the Tribunal awarded her a compensation of Rs.5,86,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶35

: 4 :

¶36

Aggrieved by the said order contending that

¶37

the said compensation is too less, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the records.

¶39

The records indicate that the appellant was a beautician and also a fashion designer. It indicates that she was receiving a salary of around Rs.10,000/- per month when she met with the accident. The Tribunal has rightly held her income to Rs.10,000/- per month in which case her annual income would be Rs.1,20,000/-. She was aged about 38 years, when she met with the accident and based upon the deposition of the Doctor, her permanent physical disability was held at 10% on whole body by the Tribunal, which we find it to be correct.

¶40

Taking into consideration, her income, age and the disability, the appropriate multiplier will be 15.

¶41

: 5 :

¶42

Thus, the disability being 10%, Rs.12,000/- X 15 = 1,80,000/-. The same has been properly assessed by the Tribunal.

¶43

However, the Tribunal based upon the

¶44

sketch produced along with mahazar prepared by the Police, has come to the conclusion that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant herein and has reduced 20% of the amount payable to her as compensation. On perusing the sketch, we find that the Tribunal erred in appreciating the same and it shows that primarily the Tata Ace vehicle which is responsible for the accident. Further the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle nor any other eyewitnesses have been examined by any of the respondents and they have not spoken as to the contributory negligence on the part of the appellant herein.

¶45

On the other hand, the appellant in her evidence has categorically stated that the accident

¶46

: 6 :

¶47

happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle. She has been crossexamined at length and nothing contrary has been elicited in her evidence. We do not find any ground to disbelieve her evidence in respect as to who caused the accident. Hence, the Tribunal was not correct in deducting 20% of the amount from the compensation held to be payable.

¶48

The Trial Court assessed the total amount of

¶49

compensation under different heads as follows:

¶50

Sl. Nos.	Particulars	Amount
1.	Loss of futureincome	Rs.1,80,000/-
2.	Painand suffering	Rs.40,000/-
3.	Loss of comfort and amenities	Rs.20,000/-
4.	Medical expenses, attendant charges, conveyance and other incidentalcharges	Rs.4,92,000/-
	Total	Rs.7,32,000/-

¶51

After assessing the total amount of

¶52

compensation at Rs.7,32,000/-, the Tribunal deducted

¶53

: 7 :

¶54

20% towards the negligence of the appellant herein. It is hereby held that the Tribunal erred in deducting 20% towards negligence of the appellant herein. Apart from the heads of compensation, we also deem it appropriate to award a further sum of Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses in favour of the appellant.

¶55

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part . The appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.7,52,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶56

The same shall be disbursed to her as per the terms mentioned by the Tribunal.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

Rsh

Shabnam W/O Sohrab Manocheri v. Malikjan B Mulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shabnam W/O Sohrab Manocheri v. Malikjan B Mulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Sudha W/O Madhukar Jamakhandi Vs the State of Karnataka

T. Nagaraj S/O Lingappa Vs State of Karnataka

Minor Muttappa Vs Vyshnavi, Anand Project Private Ltd.

He Managing Director Vs Jagadish S/O. Siddaramayya Hiremath

Shri Ujjanagouda S/O. Veerangouda Patil Vs Karibasappa S/O. Shivappa Somanahalli

Karibasappa S/O Shivappa Somanhalli Vs the Senior Manager