Partly allowed

Sri. Sathish G.K v. Sri. Satnislus Pinto

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2021MFA/4873/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special预留 to the Motor Vehicles Act regarding enhancement of compensation in a motor accident case. The High Court modified the Claims Tribunal's award, granting ₹1,97,000 including interest, enhancing certain heads of compensation and rejecting loss of future income claims.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs.1,97,000 with 6% interest on the enhanced portion from date of filing.

Sri. Sathish G.K Vs Sri. Satnislus Pinto — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

M.F.A. NO.4873 OF 2019 (MV-I)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI SATHISH G.K., S/O KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT GOWDAGERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI CHETHAN V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI SATNISLUS PINTO S/O NICOLUS PINTO, MAJOR, R/AT STANROSE VILLA, D.NO.3/121, BEHIND ALVERA MOTOR FEEDING STATION, VAMAN ZOO, MANGALORE DISTRICT.

¶15

MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., SALDHANA BUILDING,

¶16

¶17

BRIDGE ROAD, BILL MUTRT, SOUTH CANARA, MANGALORE.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

(NOTICE TO R-1 AND R-2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶20

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.547/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN DISTRICT, (SIT AT CHANNARAYAPATNA), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, against the judgment and award dated 4.02.2019 passed by the 4th Additional-District and Sessions Judge, Hassan District sitting at Channarayapatna) in MVC No.547/2017.

¶24

Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that on 2.07.2016 at 5.00 p.m., when the claimant being

¶25

¶26

inmate of the car bearing registration No.KA-19-ME-8480 was proceeding on Bangalore-Channarayaptana Road near gate of Hombalekkoppalu, a Maruti Car bearing registration No.KA-04-Z-719 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the Car in which the claimant was traveling. Due to which the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Claimant has taken the treatment as an indoor and outdoor patient at NIMHANS hospital, Bangalore and Manipal hospital Udupi and has spent huge sum of money for his treatment.

¶27

The claimant thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act stating that he was aged 38 years at the time of accident and was an agriculturist and engaged in animal husbandry and also doing vehicle business and he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Due to the grievous injuries sustained by him he is not in a position to carry out his day to day activities. He further pleaded that the accidental injuries sustained by him was solely due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Maruti Car. Hence, he sought to award compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-

¶28

¶29

The respondent No.2-Insurance company filed the written statement and inter alia while admitting the Insurance policy contended that accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving by the claimant and collusion with Police and 1st respondent got registered a false Criminal case against the 1st respondent. Hence sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶30

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant, in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW-1 and Dr. V. Mahesh as P.W.2 and got Exhibited documents Exs.P.1 to P.25 and on behalf of the respondents no witnesses were examined but documents were got marked at Ex.R1 to R6. 3.

¶31

The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending Car, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,57,000/- along with interest at the rate

¶32

¶33

of 9% p.a. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

¶34

Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of future income. He further submits that having regard to the injuries sustained by the claimant the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under conventional heads is on the lower side.

¶35

Respondents though served with notices have remained absent.

¶36

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

¶37

The accident is of the year 2016. The claimant

¶38

was aged 38 years as on the date of the accident. The Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of P.W.2 Dr. Mahesh who has stated that the claimant has suffered 5% disability to left lower limb on the ground that P.W.2 is not a neurosurgeon

¶39

¶40

and as such is not competent to assess the disability. Hence, the claimant is not entitled for compensation towards loss of future income. However, considering Exs.P.19 to Ex.P21C.T. Scan, the Tribunal held that the claimant is suffering from Cervical Spondylosis and is suffering from considerable pain and agony due to the accidental injury.

¶41

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/each under the head pain and suffering and loss of amenities and which is just and proper having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant. The compensation awarded towards medical expenses is maintained since there is no evidence to prove that the claimant has incurred medical expenses in excess of Rs.27,000/-.

¶42

Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12 discloses that the claimant

¶43

has taken treatment at Janapriya Hospital, Hassan as an indoor patient from 24.02.2016 to 26.07.2016 and at Kasturba Hospital, Manipal on 05.08.2016 where he was diagnosed with Brachal injury. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 30,000/- towards attendant charges, loss of income during laid-up period, diet, food, nourishment, conveyance and

¶44

¶45

transportation expenses which is on the lower side and the same is enhanced to 70,000/-.

¶46

Thus in all the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,97,000/-. Needless to state that the enhanced compensation of Rs.40,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization of the amount. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the claims Tribunal is modified.

¶47

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Sri. Sathish G.K v. Sri. Satnislus Pinto

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Sathish G.K v. Sri. Satnislus Pinto

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

The Branch Manager Vs Smt. Avvamma

Wipro Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Anita H @ Anita Naik Vs Sri.v.N.Jaya

Smt Jayalakshmi @ Jayalakshmamma Vs Sri Joseph K J

Raziyabi Vs Mohammed Akhib

The Managing Director Vs Revanna