Partly allowed

Sri. Rangeshappa K S v. Prabhakara H M

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2022MFA/10194/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a motor accident claim award, the High Court of Karnataka held that the Tribunal's compensation was meager. The Court enhanced the global compensation by Rs. 30,000 and modified the judgment, granting the additional sum with interest.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 30,000 granted with 6% p.a. interest from the date of the petition.

Sri. Rangeshappa K S Vs Prabhakara H M — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

M.F.A.No.10194/2018 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. RANGESHAPPA K.S., S/O SHEKHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O HOLALUR VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 210. … APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA M., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

PRABHAKARA H.M., S/O MANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, DRIVER OF CAR, R/O NO.144/1, MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU – 87. ALSO AT:R/O HONNEHALLI, SHRAVANABELAGOLA – 573 201.

¶12

SMT. JAYALAXMAMMA, W/O C.B.NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O T.P.K.ROAD, TUMKUR, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 572 101.

¶13

¶14

THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BENGALURU, BRANCH OFFICE:SHANKERMUTT ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.D.VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 AND R2 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 22.11.2022 )

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1212/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, C.J.M. AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T.-VII, SHIVAMOGGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section

¶21

173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act' for short), challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1212/2014 dated 02.06.2018 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM & Additional MACT-VII, Shivamogga, seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶22

¶23

The undisputed facts are that the claimant has sustained injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 09.09.2012 at about 12.15 p.m., near the garden land of one Veerabhadrappa on Honnali Road, Holalur Village, Shivamogga Taluk when the Tata Indica Car bearing No.KA-06-B-8477 (offending vehicle) dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant. Therefore, the claimant has filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation.

¶24

The Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances and evidence on record, has granted a compensation of Rs.15,000/- globally, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

¶25

Being aggrieved by the lesser quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed.

¶26

¶27

Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the records.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager one and prays for enhancement of compensation.

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶30

In the present case, the claimant has

¶31

sustained following injuries:

¶32

There was pain and tenderness over the left knee and the movement was painful.

¶33

An abrasion was on the upper lip, 2x1 cm;

¶34

There was bleeding from the nose, was not active

¶35

An abrasion over the left knee, 3x3 cm., anterior;

¶36

An abrasion 3x3 cm., over the left leg distal 1/3 anterior.

¶37

¶38

The injury to the nose is grievous in nature and others are simple in nature. The injury to the nose is grievous, but there is no evidence that the nasal bone was fractured. The Tribunal has granted global compensation of Rs.15,000/. The claimant is an agriculturist. Therefore, to some extent, the injuries to the nose are causing some difficulty for the claimant in performing his day-to-day activities, including work in agriculture. There is no evidence that a fracture has occurred. Hence, considering the fact that the claimant had received treatment in the hospital as well as undergone treatment and spent some money on injuries sustained, etc., the court deem it appropriate to award an additional sum of Rs. 30,000/- in addition to what the

¶39

Tribunal had awarded.

¶40

The total amount determined by this Court as

¶41

well as determined by the Tribunal shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its

¶42

¶43

realization. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed-inpart.

¶44

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶47

ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.1212/2014 is hereby modified holding the claimant is entitled for additional compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶48

iii. The claimant is not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 85 days in filing the appeal.

¶49

iv. Release the entire amount in favour of the claimant as per law.

¶50

v. Draw award accordingly.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Sri. Rangeshappa K S v. Prabhakara H M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Rangeshappa K S v. Prabhakara H M

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 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri. Bheemarajaiah

Master Tharun Vs Sri M N Ramachandrashetty

Ramappa Vs Arun Kumar

Nataraj Vs Yogisha

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Ramesha

The Divisional Manager Vs Shabeer Khan