Allowed

Sri Dayananda v. Sri Vishwajith Nayak

Karnataka HC4 Aug 2021MFA/9073/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges the compensation quantum awarded in a motor vehicle accident case. The High Court modified the Tribunal's award, enhancing loss of future earning capacity and laying up period compensation to a total of Rs. 3,51,540/-, while maintaining other awarded heads.

What did the court decide?

Modified the Tribunal's judgment to award total compensation of Rs. 3,51,540/- with 6% p.a. interest on the enhanced amount.

Sri Dayananda Vs Sri Vishwajith Nayak — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 04TH 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.9073 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI DAYANANDA S/O BASAVA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O HALASI BETTU, AIRODI VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK. ...APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI VISHWAJITH NAYAK, S/O KAMALAKAR VASU NAYAK,

¶14

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶15

R/O VASUDEVA, VANDIGE POST, ANKOLA TALUK

¶16

U.K.DISTRICT - 573101.

¶17

THE RELIANCE INSURANCE CO.LTD., OFFICE : NO.505, 5TH FLOOR, DEVAVRATA PREMISES CHS LTD., PLOT NO.83, SECTOR NO.17, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI-40070. ...RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI R1 SERVED, SRI D VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV., FOR R2)

¶19

¶20

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 14.06.2017

¶21

¶22

PASSED IN MVC NO.279/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA), KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

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 14.06.2017 in MVC.No.279/2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udupi (sitting at Kundapura), Kundapura (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).

¶26

Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated

¶27

are that on 28.01.2015 at about 1.15 p.m., when the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle from Brahmavar side towards Sasthana side and when the said motorcycle reached near Mabukala Bridge on NH-66 Balkudru village, at that time, a lorry driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from Udupi side towards Sasthan side and dashed against the motorcycle resulting in accidental

¶28

¶29

injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Mahesh Hospital, Brahmavar, wherein he took treatment.

¶30

The claimant thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act inter alia on the ground that the claimant after the accident, he is not in a position to carryon his work. It was also claimed that the claimant was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by doing centering work. The claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/along with interest.

¶31

After service of notice, respondent No.1 did not appear and he was placed exparte and respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed written statement.

¶32

The respondent No.2 filed written statement inter

¶33

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. It was further denied that the offending vehicle was insured with its company. It was also pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid

¶34

¶35

and effective driving license as on the date of accident. It was also stated that the compensation claimed by the claimant is highly excessive, speculative and exorbitant.

¶36

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 Dr.Umesh S N as PW2 and exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. The respondent No.2 neither examined any witness nor got exhibited any document.

¶37

The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,03,420/- 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.

¶38

¶39

Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the permanent disability including the monthly income of the claimant assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other conventional heads is on the lower side.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

Admittedly, the claimant has not produced any evidence with regard to his income. Therefore, the notional income of the claimant is to be assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. Since the accident is of the year 2015, notional income

¶44

¶45

comes to Rs.9,000/- per month. The doctor who was examined as PW2 has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered the disability at 33.55% with respect to right leg. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the functional disability at 11% to the whole body. In the absence of contrary evidence, the disability assessed by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. The claimant was aged about 31 years as on the date of accident Hence, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,90,080/- (Rs.9,000 x 12 x 16 x 11/100) towards loss of future earning capacity.

¶46

The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation

¶47

towards loss of income during laid up period. Hence, the claimant is held entitled to compensation amount of Rs.27,000/- under the said head. The compensation amount awarded under other heads are just and proper and the same is maintained.

¶48

Thus the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,51,540/- The enhanced compensation Rs.48,120/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from

¶49

¶50

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.

¶51

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkm

Sri Dayananda v. Sri Vishwajith Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Dayananda v. Sri Vishwajith Nayak

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

M/S Mantri Developers Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

The Rajatha Complex Vs M/S Rajatha Enterprises

Sri Namdev Vs Smt B B Kaveri

M/S. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Jyothi N

Shahul Hammed Vs Managing Director

Sri. Lokesh Vs Sri. Muhamad Mullapalli