Partly allowed

Moganna Gowda v. H R Manjegowda

Karnataka HC11 Dec 2020MFA/10930/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a motor vehicle accident case. The High Court increased the award from Rs. 55,000 to Rs. 1,40,900, accounting for loss of income due to disability and attendant charges.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 55,000 to Rs. 1,40,900 plus 6% interest payable by the insurer.

Moganna Gowda Vs H R Manjegowda — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10930 OF 2013 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MOGANNA GOWDA S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS CHIGALLI, SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK HASSAN-573201.

¶9

... APPELLANT

¶10

[BY SRI.D.P.ASHOK, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC)]

¶11

AND:

¶12

H.R.MANJEGOWDA S/O LATE RANGEGOWDA, HULUVARE SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI

¶13

HASSAN TALUK-573201.

¶14

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISION OFFICE 7(350700) 50 JANPATH NEW DELHI.

¶15

REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER, MANJUNATHA COMPLEX, BUS STAND ROAD HASSAN-573201.

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

[BY SMT.S.NIRMALA , ADVOCATE FOR R2;] (THROUGH VC)]

¶18

¶19

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.02.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.349/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-2, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Though this appeal is listed for admission, the appeal is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

This is an appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan (henceforth referred to as the ‘Tribunal) in MVC No. 349/2010.

¶24

¶25

For the sake of brevity and convenience, the

¶26

parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal.

¶27

4. The claim petition discloses that on 19.11.2009

¶28

the claimant was returning to his village along with another person. When he reached Boovanahalli cross on B.M. road, Hassan, the rider of a motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-13 U-6506 (Offending vehicle) rode it dangerously and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. As a result, the claimant suffered injuries on his right hand, right shoulder, right buttock and other parts of the body. He was shifted to S.S.M. Hospital, Hassan where he was admitted as inpatient and was treated for a month. He claimed that he was treated as an out-patient for two months and had spent a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. The claimant contended that he was an agriculturist and was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the

¶29

¶30

accident, the claimant had lost his ability to pursue agriculture and thus was unable to earn. Thus the claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- along with interest from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

¶31

The owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the claim petition. The insurer contested the claim by denying the averments made in the claim petition and the injuries sustained by the claimant. The insurer contended that there was a delay of two days in lodging the complaint and therefore the insurer contended that the claimant had concocted a case to lay a false claim for compensation.

¶32

Before the Tribunal, the claimant was examined as PW-1 and a Doctor who had treated the claimant was examined as PW-2 and they marked documents as

¶33

¶34

Exhibits P1 to P12. The insurer did not lead any evidence and did not mark any document.

¶35

The Tribunal answered Issue No.1 in favour of the claimant and held that the rider of the offending vehicle was negligent and responsible for the accident and therefore the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle was liable to pay the compensation to the claimant.

¶36

In so far as the injuries sustained by the claimant, it is noticed from Ex.P6 that the claimant had suffered fracture of right clavicle bone and right radius. The Tribunal noticed the evidence of PW-2 who deposed that the claimant had deformity of right clavicle, pain and swelling of right waist, abdomen and right forearm, abrasion over right elbow and was treated conservatively. He deposed that the X-ray of the claimant as per Ex.P12 indicated mal-union of the right clavicle and union of right radius and therefore the claimant had suffered disability of 25% in respect of the left upper limb.

¶37

¶38

As regard the quantum of compensation, the

¶39

Tribunal considered the fact that the claimant had no proof of income and therefore without considering the claim of the claimant that he was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- treated the notional income of the claimant at a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month and awarded the following compensation:

¶40

Heads under which compensation awarded	Amount in Rupees
Pain and suffering	25,000-00
Medical and other incidental expenses	5,000-00
Loss of amenities	10,000-00
Loss of income duringlaid-up period	15,000-00
Total	55,000-00

¶41

Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of

¶42

compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is in appeal and contends that in view of the fact that the notional income having been considered at Rs. 5,000/- per month, the Tribunal ought to have awarded loss of income

¶43

¶44

due to disability by accepting 8% as the disability to the whole body. He also contended that the Tribunal must have awarded compensation towards attendant charges, conveyance charges and charges towards nourished food as the claimant was inpatient for four days and was treated as an out-patient for nearly two months.

¶45

Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer contended that the claimant had not suffered any major injuries and injuries to the clavicle bone would not affect the functional ability of the claimant and therefore prayed that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be not disturbed.

¶46

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimant, when once the Tribunal had determined the notional income of the claimant and when the treated Doctor had deposed before the Court that the claimant had suffered, a disability to the extent of 25% to the left upper limb, the Tribunal ought to have made a rough assessment

¶47

¶48

of the compensation by accepting 8% as disability as is normally done. In addition, the Tribunal must have awarded compensation towards attendant charges, nourished food charges, etc., If the above is taken into consideration, the claimant would be entitled to the

¶49

following compensation:

¶50

Heads under which compensation awarded	Amount in Rupees
Pain and suffering	25,000-00
Medical and other incidental expenses	5,000-00
Loss of amenities	15,000-00
Loss of income during laid-up period for three months	15,000-00
Loss of income due to disabilityat 8%	62,400-00
Attendant charges at Rs. 150/- per dayfor three months	13,500-00
Nourished food and conveyance charges	5,000-00
Total	1,40,900-00

¶51

In view of the above, this appeal is allowed in

¶52

part and the compensation of Rs.55,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to a sum of Rs.1,40,900/- payable by the insurer along with interest at the rate of 6% per

¶53

¶54

annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.

¶55

The respondent No.2-owner shall deposit the deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with interest within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶56

Sd/- JUDGE

¶57

mbb

Moganna Gowda v. H R Manjegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moganna Gowda v. H R Manjegowda

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

Hanumantha Sa Ladwa Vs Channaveerappa

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt Nagamma

Shri Ashish Billore S/O K v Billore Vs the Karnataka Government

Kum Lakshmi Vs Sri Raju C a

Smt Savara Kavitha Vs State of Karnataka

Errappa @ Yarappa Vs State by