Partly allowed

Sri Vivek N B v. Sri Mahesh C

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2021MFA/7849/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal filed by a motorcycle pillion rider seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. The Court re-assessed the compensation considering the claimant's age, injury, and future prospects.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced from Rs.11,01,400/- to Rs.13,58,00/- with interest at 6% per annum.

Sri Vivek N B Vs Sri Mahesh C — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5^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.7849/2018 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI VIVEK N.B., S/O LATE BHEEMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O NEELAKANTANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT PRESENTLY R/AT KUVEMPU COLLEGE, B.M.ROAD, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562160.

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI S.RAJU, ADV.)

¶12

AND :

¶13

1 . SRI MAHESH C., S/O CHIKKEGOWDA, AGE MAJOR, R/AT NO.89/2, HANASANAHALLI VILLAGE, KAILANCHA HOBLI, K.P.DODDI POST, RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT-562160.

¶14

2 . CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.9/1, NEAR HALASURU LAKE,

¶15

¶16

HALASURU ROAD, BENGALURU-560042. REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R-2; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 12.07.2017 NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH.)

¶18

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.01.2018 PASSED IN MVC No.497/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 24.01.2018 passed in MVC No.497/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Addl. MACT, Channapattana, Ramanagara (‘Tribunal’ for short).

¶22

The claimant instituted the petition under

¶23

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming

¶24

¶25

compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.

¶26

It was averred in the petition that on

¶27

27.09.2016 at about 8.00 p.m. when the claimant was proceeding in the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-11-Q-1834 as a pillion with his friend who was riding the motorcycle following the traffic rules, the speeding Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-42-A4634 (offending vehicle) came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner crashed against the motorcycle and caused accident, as a result of which the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries.

¶28

He has incurred huge medical expenses for the treatment.

¶29

It was contended that the claimant was aged about 18 years. He was working in a private company and earning Rs.15,000/- per month besides pursuing his engineering course.

¶30

¶31

On issuance of summons, the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurance company appeared before the Tribunal through their respective counsel and contested the claim. The insurer admitting the coverage of the insurance policy as on the date of the accident contended that the liability, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.

¶32

On the basis of the pleadings, the issues were framed and answered as per the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment allowing the claim petition in part awarding total compensation of Rs.11,01,400/with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realisation.

¶33

Being dissatisfied, the claimant has

¶34

preferred the present appeal.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant

¶36

argued that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the

¶37

¶38

material evidence on record. The injuries sustained by the claimant being grievous and considering the treatment taken by him as an inpatient for a period of 22 days undergoing surgery, the Tribunal ought to have awarded the just compensation. The injuries sustained by the claimant has an impact for the rest of his life, almost he is crippled having suffered the injuries at the young age. Having regard to the gravity of injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced substantially.

¶39

Learned counsel for the insurer supporting the impugned judgment and award submitted that the Tribunal has awarded the just compensation on analyzing the oral and documentary evidence profusely and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶40

¶41

We have carefully considered the rival

¶42

submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the original records.

¶43

The factum of accident and the injuries

¶44

sustained by the claimant in the said accident are not in dispute. It is discerned from the records that the claimant was aged about 18 years at the time of the accident. It is contended that he was pursuing his engineering course besides working in a private company. Having regard to the qualification of the claimant and his age, we deem it appropriate to redetermine the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/-. It is discerned from the medical records that the claimant has suffered the disability of 30% to the whole body. Considering the disability assessed by the Orthopedic Surgeon - CW1 at 10% and at 50% by the Neuro Surgeon - CW.2, the disability assessed by the Tribunal being reasonable based on the medical

¶45

¶46

records, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. Applying the multiplier of ‘18’, loss of future income due to permanent disability would be Rs.6,48,000/- (10,000 x 12 x 18 x 30%).

¶47

It is obvious that the claimant has to forego many of the amenities which he would have otherwise enjoyed but for the accident. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities; future medical expenses is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards marriage prospects. In view of awarding compensation towards loss of future income, again awarding a sum of Rs.48,000/- towards loss of earning is not necessary. A sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period for 3 months (10,000 x 3). Medical and incidental charges awarded at Rs.3,30,000/- remains intact.

¶48

¶49

For the reasons aforesaid, the total

¶50

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed as under:

¶51

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount [in Rs.]
1.	Pain and sufferings	1,00,000/-
2.	Loss of amenities and Happiness	1,00,000/-
3.	Medical and incidental charges	3,30,000/-
4.	Loss of future earning due to permanent disability	6,48,000/-
5.	Loss of income during laid up period (3 months)	30,000/-
6.	Futuremedicalexpenses	50,000/-
7.	Towards marriage prospects	1,00,000/-
	Total	13,58,000/-

¶52

Thus, the claimant shall be entitled to total

¶53

compensation of Rs.13,58,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.

¶54

Hence, the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶57

- 9 -

¶58

ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.13,58,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand only) as against Rs.11,01,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶59

iii) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability and disbursement remains intact. iv) The insurance company shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.

¶60

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

¶61

vi) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶62

10 -

¶63

vii) The Registry shall transfer the original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.

¶64

viii) All pending I.As. stand disposed of accordingly.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

PMR

Sri Vivek N B v. Sri Mahesh C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vivek N B v. Sri Mahesh C

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 Shruthi Vs Instant Transport

The Branch Manager Vs Smt. Shruthi

Sri. Shridhara Acharya Vs Mr Dinesh R K

Sri T Lokesha Vs B Siddappa

Sri. M. R. Srinivasa Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Nalini. K Vs Sri. Prakash. S