Partly allowed

The Divisional Manager, v. Venkatesh S/O Hanamareddy Hosamani

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2020MFA/21961/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court held that the Claims Tribunal erred in deducting personal expenses and reducing compensation. The quantum of compensation was modified and reduced to Rs. 1,57,701/- with adjustments to heads of loss.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of the Claims Tribunal was modified; compensation reduced to Rs. 1,57,701/- with adjustments to personal expenses.

The Divisional Manager, Vs Venkatesh S/O Hanamareddy Hosamani — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 28^th DAY OF AUGUST 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

MFA No.21961/2013 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., CLUB ROAD, DHARWAD.

¶8

.. APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI.M.G.GADGOLI, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SHRI.VENKATESH S/O HANAMAREDDY HOSAMANI AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE & AGRICULTURE, R/O: BINKADAKATTI, TQ & DIST: GADAG.

¶12

SRINIVAS RANGANATH THIRLAPUR

¶13

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: VENKATESH NILAYA, OPPSITE MUNICIPAL HIGH SCHOOL, M.G. ROAD, GADAG, TQ & DIST: GADAG. (OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.KA-26/6575)

¶14

.. RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.SURESH P.HUDEDAGADDI, ADV. FOR R1, NOTIE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶16

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.313/2010 BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, GADAG.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal, though listed for admission, is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶21

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for

¶22

short) has been filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.01.2013 passed by the District Judge and MACT, at Gadag in M.V.C.No.313/2010.

¶23

Parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal.

¶24

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that, on 03.06.2009 at about 12.30 a.m. the claimant was traveling in the lorry belonging to respondent No.1 bearing Reg.No.KA-26/6575 from Mangalore to Koppal. When the said lorry reached Bannikoppa cross on NH-63, the driver of the lorry drove

¶25

¶26

the same on wrong side and dashed to another lorry. Due to impact of the accident, the claimant sustained injuries to his right foot and other parts of the body. He was immediately shifted to District Hospital, Koppal for preliminary treatment and claimant took further treatment at Shakuntala Memorial Hospital, Hubballi as an inpatient for 15 days.

¶27

The claimant claiming to have spent huge sums

¶28

of money towards treatment for the injuries sustained by him in the accident filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal on the ground that he was aged about 40 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.5,000/- p.m. and maintaining the family and due to the accident his future income is put to jeopardy and accordingly claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest at 18% p.a.

¶29

On service of notice, respondent No.1 did not appear and was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2-

¶30

¶31

Insurance Company appeared and filed statement of objections denying the age, avocation and income of the claimant. The amount spent by the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the accident was also denied. It was also contended that the compensation sought was highly excessive and exorbitant.

¶32

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence.

¶33

The claimant, in order to prove his case, examined himself as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2 and got marked 24 documents namely Exs.P1 to P24. On the other hand, respondent-Insurance Company examined one witness as R.W.1 and got marked insurance policy as Ex.R1.

¶34

The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia , held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its

¶35

¶36

driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries and further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,50,101/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The Insurance Company has preferred the subject appeal only on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶37

I have heard Sri.M.G.Gadagoli, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Sri.Suresh P.Hudedagaddi, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶38

The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal has grossly erred in deducting 1/3^rd towards personal expenses as if it is a case of death, which varies the compensation in favour of the claimant. It is further contended that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards shortening of life span on account of injury, which is also erroneous. Hence, he seeks reduction of compensation.

¶39

¶40

On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant would support the order passed by the Tribunal but would concede with regard to position of law insofar as taking of personal expenses is concerned.

¶41

I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The only question that arises for my consideration is with regard to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶42

Admittedly, the claim was for an injury and the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3^rd towards personal expenses. Thus, the compensation under loss of future income will have to be assessed in the following manner.

¶43

Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 14 x 5/100 = Rs.42,000/- as against Rs.1,34,400/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶44

The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards shortening of life span on account of injury, which is erroneous and is set aside. Setting aside of the award of compensation under the head of shortening of

¶45

¶46

life span will have to be adjusted towards loss of amenities. The Tribunal has granted Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities, which I deem it appropriate to enhance it by another Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal has granted less amount on the head of pain and agony, which also, I deem it appropriate to enhance it by another Rs.10,000/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled to reduced compensation of Rs.1,57,701/- as against Rs.2,50,101/- awarded by the Tribunal. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶47

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶48

The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transferred to

¶49

the Tribunal forthwith.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

MBS/-

The Divisional Manager, v. Venkatesh S/O Hanamareddy Hosamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager, v. Venkatesh S/O Hanamareddy Hosamani

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

Divisional Manager Vs Mariyappas/O. Mariswamappa Harizan

H Shivalingamma W/O Late H Ramanuja @ H.Ramanjini Vs a K Gangadhara S/O Veerappa

Ajay Kumar S/O Gopalappa, Vs the Divisional Manager

The Divisional Manager Vs Renuka @ Rekha

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Shva Prasad S/O. Venkateshappa

The Divisional Manager Vs Shivaling Kallappa Jakati