Allowed

Padmayya N Naik v. Muktar Ahammed

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2021MFA/7610/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This memorandum appeal challenges the compensation amount in a motor accident case. The High Court modified the Tribunal's award by increasing loss of future earning capacity due to incorrect assessment of income and disability, ordering a total compensation of Rs. 3,46,270 with interest.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is disposed of with the judgment modified; total compensation of Rs. 3,46,270 awarded with 6% interest on enhancement.

Padmayya N Naik Vs Muktar Ahammed — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 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.7610 OF 2015 (MV-I)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

PADMAYYA N NAIK, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O NAGAPPA NAIK, R/O SHIRUR POST AND VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK,

¶11

UDUPI DISTRICT - 576101. ...APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

MUKTAR AHAMMED, AGE:MAJOR,

¶15

S/O RAZAK SAHEB,

¶16

R/O VENKATAPUR, BHATKAL,

¶17

U.K.DISTRICT - 576 101.

¶18

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JEWEL PLAZA, MARUTHI VEETHIKA, UDUPI - 576 101,

¶19

REP:BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. ...RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶21

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1056/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY

¶22

¶23

ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

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

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) is filed against the judgment and award dated 3.6.2015 in MVC No.1056/2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kundapura (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).

¶27

Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that on 6.10.2013, when the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Regn. No.KA-30-J-9373 along with his wife as pillion rider from Honnegadde towards Bhatkal side and when they reached at NH-17, Karegadde Cross, Bhatkal, at that time, a motorcycle bearing Regn. No.KA-47-K-3546 came from Karegadde side towards NH-17 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimants, as a result of which, the claimant fell down along with the motorcycle on the road resulting in accidental injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Chinmayi Hospital,

¶28

¶29

Kundapura, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient from 6.10.2013 to 20.10.2013.

¶30

The claimant thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act inter alia on the ground that the claimant after the accident is not able to lift any weight from

¶31

the right upper limb for a period of one year since subluxation of clavicular right and do his work as before. It was also claimed that the claimant was aged about 32 years and earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as a mason. The claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.17,70,000/- along with interest.

¶32

After service of notice, respondents appeared through their counsel and filed written statements.

¶33

The respondent No.1 has admitted the ownership

¶34

in respect of motorcycle bearing Regn. No.KA-47-K-3546. It was further contended that the said vehicle is insured with the 2nd respondent and the rider had valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. He denied the averment made in the claim petition.

¶35

¶36

The respondent No.2 filed written statement inter

¶37

alia, in which, the mode and manner of the accident was denied. The age, occupation, income and injuries sustained by the claimant were denied. However, it admitted the existence of policy in respect of motorcycle bearing Regn. No.KA-47-K-3546. It was also pleaded that liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It was also pleaded that the rider of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle bearing Regn. No.KA-30-J-9373. It was also stated that the compensation claimed by the claimant is highly excessive, speculative and exorbitant.

¶38

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant, in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW1 and one witness as PW2 and exhibited the

¶39

¶40

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. The respondents did not choose to lead any oral evidence nor produce any documents

¶41

The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending motorcycle bearing Regn. No.KA-47-K-3546 by its rider, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,95,710/along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

¶42

Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimant suffered disability to the extent of 16% to the left upper limb and the same is applicable to whole body. He submitted that the said disability has to be considered. However, the Tribunal has erroneously taken the disability at 10%. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other conventional heads is on the lower side.

¶43

¶44

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and the same does not call of any interference.

¶45

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

¶46

The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

¶47

Admittedly, the claimant has not produced any evidence with regard to his income. The Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of Rs.6,000/- per month instead of Rs.8,000/- per month which is normally assessed for the accidental claim for the year 2013 as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority, which comes to Rs.8,000/- p.m. The doctor who was examined as PW2 has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered the disability at 16% with respect to left upper limb, which is applicable to whole body having regard to the

¶48

¶49

avocation of the claimant. However, the Tribunal without any basis has assessed the functional disability at 10% instead of 16%. Hence, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,45,760/- (Rs.8,000/- x 12 x 16 x 16/100) towards loss of future earning capacity.

¶50

The claimant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards removal of implants. The compensation amount awarded under other heads are just and proper and the same is maintained.

¶51

Thus the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,46,270/-. The enhanced compensation Rs.1,50,560/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 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.

¶52

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

JUDGE

¶55

bkm

Padmayya N Naik v. Muktar Ahammed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmayya N Naik v. Muktar Ahammed

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

Smt Mangamma Vs Shri Narasimha Murthy

Sri. Lokesha Vs Sri. K. R. Mohan Raju

The Managing Director Vs Nanjaiah

Smt. C. R. Umarani Vs Smt. S. Shaheena

Mallikarjunaiah B K Vs M. Natesh

Smt Lakshmamma W/O Late P Krishnappa Vs Smt Vijayalakshmi