Partly allowed

Mr. B.Y.Darshan v. Balakrishna

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2021MFA/2375/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal partly. The Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from Rs.3,80,000 to Rs.4,03,680, adjusting notional income and specific heads of loss. Interest was modified to 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 4,03,680. Interest on enhanced amount fixed at 6% per annum from date of claim till realization.

Mr. B.Y.Darshan Vs Balakrishna — Money Laundering | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

M.F.A.No.2375/2018 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

Mr. B.Y. Darshan S/o L.N. Yogeshwara, Aged about 26 years, R/at Back road of Kariyamma Temple, Belur Town, Belur, Hassan District-573 121.

¶10

...Appellant

¶11

(By Sri. Syed Abdul Saboor, Advocate)

¶12

AND :

¶13

Balakrishna S/o Honnaiah, Aged about 49 years, R/a KWS 58, Housing Board, Chikmagaluru-577 101.

¶14

The Manager The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Crescent Court,

¶15

¶16

K.M. Road,

¶17

Chickamagaluru-577 101.

¶18

…Respondents

¶19

(By Sri. D. Vijayakumar, Advocate for R2; R1 Served)

¶20

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V.Act against the judgment and award dated 20.09.2017 passed in MVC.No.266/2016 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Member, Additional Mact, Chikkamagaluru, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶21

The appeal coming on for Admission this day, M.I.Arun, J ., delivered the following:

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 20.09.2017 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chickamagalur, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.266/2016, the petitioner therein have preferred this appeal.

¶24

- 3 -

¶25

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties

¶26

are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶27

The brief facts of the case are that on 05.03.2016 at about 10.30 p.m., the petitioner and one Pavan was returning to Beluru. Pavan was riding motorcycle bearing No.KA:46:J:4408, when they came near Apolla Pharmacy Shop, IG road, Chikkamagaluru, a light goods vehicle bearing No.KA:18:A:278 being driven in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed against the motor cycle. Due to the said accident, petitioner and the rider of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner sustained fracture of right femur and injuries to other parts of the body. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to M.G. Hospital, Chikkamagaluru, wherein he was treated as an inpatient from 06.03.2016 to 08.03.2016. He

¶28

¶29

underwent surgery with implant. He took treatment as an inpatient in Government hospital, Beluru from 8.03.2016 to 14.03.2016. Hence, he preferred MVC No.266/2016 before the Tribunal and claimed a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

¶30

The respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 is the insurance company with whom the offending vehicle is insured.

¶31

After service of summons, respondent has appeared before the Tribunal through their counsel. Respondent No.1 did not file any objections. Respondent No.2 filed its statement of objections denying liability and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶32

The petitioner, to prove his case has

¶33

examined himself as PW-1 and doctor was examined

¶34

¶35

as CW-1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.17. The

¶36

respondents did not examine any witnesses and got marked documents Exs.R1 to R6.

¶37

The Tribunal based on the pleadings and the

¶38

evidence let in, came to the conclusion that accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the light goods vehicle belonging to respondent No.1. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to the petitioner. Not satisfied by the same, the petitioner therein have preferred this appeal.

¶39

There is no dispute as to the factum of the

¶40

accident and negligence on the part of respondent No.1 in causing the accident. The only question arises for consideration is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

¶41

¶42

The accident is of the year 2016. Though

¶43

the petitioner has contended that he was working as Cash Representative at M/s. Radiant Cash Management Pvt., Ltd., he has not produced any cogent evidence to prove the same. The Tribunal has adopted a notional income as Rs.8,000/- per month. We in fact find the same is on the lower side. As per

¶44

the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in consultation with the Insurance Companies, the notional income in the absence of proof of income to be adopted for the year 2016 is Rs.9,500/- per month. Petitioner was aged about 24 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion based on the evidence of PW2Doctor that the petitioner sufferered disability to the whole body at 9%. Petitioner is unable to show why the same needs to be altered. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,56,000/- towards loss of

¶45

¶46

future income. We deem it appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.1,84,680/- (Rs.9,500 x 12 x 18x 9%). On count of pain and suffering, Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/-, we deem it appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.50,000/-. Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.67,000/- based on the medical bills produced by the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to hold it to be correct. Towards nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-, we deem it appropriate to enhance it to Rs.20,000/-. Towards loss of income during laid up period a sum of Rs. 32,000/- is awarded, we deem the same to be appropriate. Towards disability a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded, same is hereby disallowed as compensation is awarded on the head of loss of income during laid up period and also loss of future income. Towards loss of amenities Rs.25,000/- is

¶47

¶48

awarded, we deem it appropriate to enhance it to Rs.30,000/-. Towards future medical expenses a sum of Rs.20,000/- was awarded, we deem the same to be appropriate and the same to be correct. Thus in all, compensation awarded to the petitioner is enhanced from Rs.3,80,000/- to Rs.4,03,680/-.

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii] The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.4,03,680/(Rupees Four Lakhs three thousand six hundred eighty only) as against Rs.3,80,000/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶51

iii) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability and disbursement remains intact.

¶52

¶53

iii] The insurance company shall deposit the reassessed total compensation determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.

¶54

v] The modified compensation shall be disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal.

¶55

vi] Draw modified award accordingly.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

Mr. B.Y.Darshan v. Balakrishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. B.Y.Darshan v. Balakrishna

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

Kumari. Shreya @ Rakshitha Vs Halappa. H @ Haleshappa

The Divisional Manager/Branch Manager Vs Sri Channalakkaiah

Smt Sharadhamma Vs Halappa H @ Haleshappa

M K Bharathi Vs Sri Krishna Kumar B P

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Nagarathna

Mr Sunil Abraham Solomon Vs Mrs Nishitha Helouis Salian