Partly allowed

Rajashekhar J.K v. Dheeraj Kumar

Karnataka HC11 Jan 2021MFA/2667/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant challenged the compensation award in a motor vehicle accident case, claiming enhancement. The High Court upheld the liability and most compensation heads but directed the addition of Rs.75,000 for loss of amenities.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced by Rs.75,000 for loss of amenities to total Rs.13,06,897 with interest at 6% per annum; insurance company directed to deposit amount within 90 days.

Rajashekhar J.K Vs Dheeraj Kumar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶8

MFA NO.2667 OF 2019 (MV)

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

RAJASHEKHAR J. K. S/O BASAVARAJAPPA J. K. AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT ‘SHIVAKRUPA’ 4^TH CROSS, TILAK NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA – 577 203 ... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SMT. MANJULADEVI R. KAMADOLLI, ADV.)

¶12

AND :

¶13

DHEERAJ KUMAR

¶14

S/O C. KUSHAL SHETTY MAJOR, R/O 2/58

¶15

BELVE, KUNDAPURA TALUK – 576 201 UDUPI DISTRICT

¶16

S. SANDEEPA SHETTY S/O H. MOHAN DAS SHETTY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O SOORGOLI MELEMANE BELVE POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK – 576 201 UDUPI DISTRICT

¶17

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AA CIRCLE, B. H. ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA ... RESPONDENTS

¶18

¶19

(BY SRI. P. B. RAJU, ADV. FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 06.11.2020)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.08.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.808/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT-8 SHIVAMOGGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.808/2015 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-8, at Shivamogga, dated 06.08.2018, the petitioner therein has preferred this appeal.

¶24

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶25

The brief facts of the case are that on 25.04.2015 the petitioner along with his family members and relatives were traveling in Maruthi Alto Car driven by his relative Dr.Vivek Veeresh Jainkeri and when they were traveling near Shivapura on the river bridge, a Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-20-A-

¶26

¶27

9123 belonging to respondent No.1 and driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the vehicle of the petitioner which resulted in the injury of the petitioner. Hence, he preferred MVC No.808/2015 before the Tribunal and claimed a compensation of Rs.49,00,000/- along with others in connected matters.

¶28

Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending Lorry, respondent No.2 is the driver of the offending Lorry and respondent No.3 is the insurance company with whom the offending lorry is duly insured.

¶29

After service of notice respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal and was placed exparte, respondent No.2 though appeared through his counsel did not file any written statement and respondent No.3 appeared through its counsel and filed its written statement denying the liability.

¶30

Petitioner got examined two witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P46. Through Court Commissioner two witnesses were examined and Exs.C.1 to C.124 were marked.

¶31

¶32

Respondents did not examine any witness nor got marked any documents.

¶33

The Tribunal based on the pleadings and the evidence let in, has awarded a sum of Rs.12,32,000/- as compensation. Not satisfied by the same, petitioner has preferred this appeal.

¶34

The factum of accident and the same happening due to the negligent driving of the Lorry is not in dispute. The only question that arises for consideration is quantum of compensation.

¶35

From the records it is seen that due to the accident, the petitioner sustained the following injuries:-

¶36

1. Right humerus fracture-grievous

¶37

1. Right femur fracture at subtrochanteric and intercondylar region- grievous

¶38

1. Left distal radius fracture-grievous

¶39

1. Right distal tibia and fibula fracture-grievous 5) Left clavicle fracture - grievous

¶40

1. Two abrasions over the face and

¶41

1. 5x1x0.5 cm laceration over the neck

¶42

¶43

Based on the evidence, the Tribunal has rightly considered the total disability to the whole body at 43%. No reason is assigned by the petitioner as to why the decision of the Tribunal in assessing the percentage of the disability has be disbelieved. Petitioner at the time of the accident was aged 56 years and is stated to be a Businessman and LIC agent. However, no proof is produced to show his income and Tribunal has considered the notional income at Rs.10,000/per month. In fact, the said notional income is higher than what is shown in the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in consultation with the Insurance Companies. Notional income of Rs.10,000/- p.m. is rightly arrived at by the Tribunal, taking into consideration the qualification of the petitioner. The Tribunal applying the multiplier of 9 has awarded a sum of Rs.4,64,400/- towards loss of future income. The Tribunal has awarded in all, the following compensation as shown below to the petitioner:-

¶44

¶45

Sl.	Particulars	Amount
No.
1.	Towards pain and sufferings	Rs. 1,50,000/-
2.	Towards loss of income during laid up period.	Rs. 30,000/-
3.	Towards attendant charges and food nourishment	Rs. 40,000/-
4.	Towards medical expenses	Rs. 5,47,497/-
5.	Towards loss of future income	Rs. 4,64,400/-
	Total	Rs.12,31,897/-

¶46

We do not find any infirmity in the amounts awarded under the respective heads of compensation. However, it is noticed no amount is awarded under the head ‘loss of amenities’. We deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards loss of amenities having regard to the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner and its impact for the rest of life. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to total compensation of Rs.13,06,897/- as against Rs.12,32,000/-.

¶47

Hence, the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i] Appeal is allowed in part.

¶50

ii] The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.13,06,897/(Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Six Thousand Eight Hundred

¶51

¶52

and Ninety Seven only) against Rs.12,32,000/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.

¶53

iii] The insurance company shall deposit the re-assessed 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

iv] The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability and disbursement remains intact.

¶55

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

¶56

vi] Draw modified award accordingly.

¶57

Sd/- JUDGE

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

MH/-

Rajashekhar J.K v. Dheeraj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajashekhar J.K v. Dheeraj Kumar

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

Sri. Murthy v Vs M/S. Ama Logistics

Smt. Nagarathnamma Vs Kariyappa

Smt M R Vijayakumari Vs Bharath Pawar R

Nishanth N R Vs Jagadish B R

Shri. C. N. Kumar Vs the Branch Manager

Smt. Kanika Agrawal Vs Sri. Chetan Reddy. B