Partly allowed

Mujeeb Pasha v. Mohammed Rafi

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2021MFA/4335/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing an appeal against a Motor Vehicles Tribunal award of Rs. 60,000 compensation for a road traffic accident. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, setting a revised compensation of Rs. 85,000 across various heads including medical expenses, loss of income, and pain and suffering.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs.85,000 with interest; respondent to pay differential within six weeks.

Mujeeb Pasha Vs Mohammed Rafi — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

¶5

M.F.A. NO.4335 OF 2015 (MV -I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MUJEEB PASHA, S/O. ABDUL SATHER, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. KODLIPETE,

¶8

SOMWARAPETE TALUK.

¶9

PRESENT ADDRESS:MUJEEB PASHA, S/O. ABDUL SATHER, BALUPETE, SAKALESHPUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201. ...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SHRI JAGADEESH H.T, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MOHAMMED RAFI, S/O. ABDUL REHAMAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. NEW MUNICIPALITY, KODLIPETE, SOMWARAPETE TALUK, MADIKERI DISTRICT.

¶13

BRANCH MANAGER, UNIVERSAL SOMPO, GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, K.V.D.KOVERS, 7, 3, 2^ND FLOOR, BLACKWELLS FINANCE, 100 FEET ROAD, INDIRANAGAR

¶14

¶15

(OLD MADRAS ROAD),

¶16

BANGALORE - 560 032. …RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SHRI H.N.KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

¶18

¶19

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:10.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.93/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, MACT, SAKALESHPUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal lays challenge to the judgment passed by Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Sakaleshpur, in MVC No.93/2011 dated 10.04.2012, wherein the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- with interest at 6% per annum as compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the road traffic accident.

¶23

The brief case of the petitioner is that when the petitioner was proceeding in front of Anwar work shop at Kodlipet, on 17.11.2010 at about 10:00 a.m., the driver of the Auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-12-8468 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the petitioner from his back side. As a result,

¶24

¶25

he fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to S.C.Hospital, Hassan. After first aid, he was shifted to Mangala Hospital, Hassan and after x-ray examination, it was found that, there is a fracture of right femur, accordingly, he has undergone surgery and he took treatment as an inpatient for a period of 20 days and spent more than Rs.75,000/- towards medical expenses. Hence, he filed the petition claiming compensation.

¶26

Respondent No.1 did not appear and respondent

¶27

No.2 appeared and filed written statement and contended that the policy was in force but the liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy.

¶28

Before the tribunal, the petitioner got examined himself as PW.1, got marked twenty three documents as Exs.P1 to P23 which consists of FIR, complaint, wound certificate, IMV report, spot mahazar, 12 medical bills, 4 medical prescriptions and discharge summary. Respondent No.2 either adduced evidence or produced documents.

¶29

The tribunal after hearing the arguments, passed the impugned judgment which is now under challenge.

¶30

¶31

Heard Sri. Jagadeesh H.T., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. H.N.Keshava Prashanth, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶32

The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the tribunal has awarded the compensation under the various heads such as, pain and suffering, medical expenses, attendant charges, food and nourishment and future expenses which is on the lower side. All the heads of compensation are not considered. Learned counsel argued that the appellant has spent nearly Rs.75,000/- towards medical expenses which itself indicates that he has undergone severe pain. Learned counsel argued that the tribunal has not awarded compensation under the different heads instead awarded global compensation which is not just and proper. With these main contentions, he prays for enhancement of compensation.

¶33

Against this learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and proper looking to the evidence placed before the tribunal and he submits that the same needs no interference. With these main contentions, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶34

¶35

I have perused the appeal memo, the impugned judgment and records of the case.

¶36

The accident is not in dispute and the liability of the insurance company is also not in dispute. Ex.P6 – medical bills shows that the injured was in hospital from 13.12.2010 to 18.12.2010. It is also evident that he has sustained fracture of right trochentric and sustained other injuries. As per Ex.P23 - discharge summary, he was advised to take rest and medicines as per prescription. He was conservatively treated.

¶37

A person who sustained fracture of right trochentric requires minimum three months to reunite and rest. In this case, the petitioner is aged about 35 years at the time of accident. It is contended that he was doing some electrical work and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and ofcourse, he has not produced any document in support of his income. In the absence of any proof of income, considering the age of the deceased and as the accident is of the year 2010, as per the Lok-Adalath chart, the notional income at Rs.6,500/- per month is to be taken as income of the appellant. Hence, by taking the income of the appellant

¶38

¶39

at Rs.6,500/- and considering the treatment period, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.19,500/- (Rs.6,500 x 3) towards loss of income during treatment period. He has sustained fracture of femur, therefore, he is entitled for compensation towards 'pain and suffering' in a sum of Rs.25,000/-. He has produced medical bills for a sum of Rs.24,929/- and the same is just and proper. Appellant is also entitled for compensation towards 'food, nourishment and attendant charges during laid up period', hence, a sum of Rs.8,000/- is awarded under the said head. The appellant has not examined the doctor regarding disability. However, he has to suffer unhappiness and inconvenience throughout of his life due to the fracture sustained in the accident. Hence, a sum of Rs.7,000/- is awarded towards 'loss of amenities'. In all the appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs.84,429/- which is rounded off to Rs.85,000/-. Looking to all these aspects, the appellant is entitled for further enhancement of Rs.25,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the tribunal at Rs.60,000/-.

¶40

¶41

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(i) Appeal is allowed in part.

¶44

(ii) The appellant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.85,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶45

(iii) The respondent No.2 shall make good the differential amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶46

(iv) Costs made easy.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

Mujeeb Pasha v. Mohammed Rafi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mujeeb Pasha v. Mohammed Rafi

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

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri Muniyappa S/O Anjanappa

Sri. Padmanabha Vs Narasimha Reddy D

Sri Ningegowda Vs Mohankumar D

Mr. Udaya Kumar Shetty @ Udaya Kumar Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Shivaranajani @ Ranjani Vs N Huchegowda

Mrs. Gowramma Vs the Manager Legal