Partly allowed

Sri Chikkanna v. N Prasanna

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2022MFA/16/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the Tribunal's award in two motor accident claims. Aggrieved by low compensation, the claimant sought enhancement. While dismissing the insurer's appeal on endorsement grounds, the Court enhanced the award to Rs. 2,66,062/- with interest.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 50,000/- granted, bringing total to Rs. 2,66,062/- with 6% interest from date of petition. Insurer directed to pay within six weeks.

Sri Chikkanna Vs N Prasanna — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

M.F.A NO.16 OF 2017(MV-I) c/w

¶7

M.F.A NO.8615 OF 2016 (MV-I)

¶8

IN M.F.A NO.16/2017:

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

SRI. CHIKKANNA, S/O DODDEGOWDA, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.335/2, HUNDI BEEDHI, HINKAL, MYSORE-570 024.

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. VEERABHADRA SWAMY H., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND :

¶14

N. PRASANNA, S/O N.NAJARAJE URS, AGE: MAJOR, D.NO.MIG 14 10^TH CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, BOGADI, MYSORE-570031.

¶15

THE MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, 1^ST FLOOR, MYSORE TRADE CENTRE, MYSORE-570 028.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE

¶18

¶19

FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 31.01.2020)

¶20

THIS M.F.A., IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.90/2014 ON THE FILE OF JUDGE PRINCIPAL SMALL CAUSES AND MACT, AT MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

IN M.F.A NO.8615/2016:

¶22

BETWEEN :

¶23

THE MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.36/D, OPPOSITE TO KSRTC BUS STAND, 1ST FLOOR, MYSURU TRADE CENTRE, MYSURU. ALSO AT RELIANCE GENERAL INS.CO.LTD., NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL.

¶24

...APPELLANT

¶25

(BY SRI. ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND :

¶27

SRI. CHIKKANNA, S/O SRI. DODDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.335/2, HUNDI BEEDHI, HINKAL, MYSURU.

¶28

¶29

SRI. N.PRASANNA, S/O SRI. N. NANJARAJE URS, R/AT DOOR NO.MIG-14, 10TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD, BOGADI, MYSURU.

¶30

...RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. VEERABHADRASWAMY H., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 18.11.2022)

¶32

THIS M.F.A., IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.90/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MACT, MYSURU, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2,16,062/- @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.

¶33

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimant

¶36

and the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance company.

¶37

These two appeals are filed by the claimant as well as the Insurance Company, respectively, challenging the judgment and award dated 23.09.2016, passed in M.V.C No.90/2014 on the file of the learned Principal

¶38

¶39

Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Mysuru (‘the Tribunal’ for short), questioning the quantum of compensation and the liability.

¶40

The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

¶41

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that the claimant met with an accident on 27.09.2013 when he was proceeding on his motorcycle, at that time, the driver of the car drove his car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, as a result, he has sustained grievous injuries.

¶42

The claimant in order to substantiate his case, he has examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents Exs.P.1 to 10, doctor is examined as PW.2 and got marked documents at Exs.P.11 and 12. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 examined its official as R.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.R1 to R3.

¶43

¶44

The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, allowed the petition in-part, awarded an amount of Rs.2,16,062/- @ 6% interest. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award, the Insurance company as well as the claimant have filed these two appeals.

¶45

The learned counsel for the claimant/appellant contended that the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.2,16,062/- and the compensation awarded under the head of 'pain, injuries and sufferings' at Rs.10,000/- is very meager and also under the head of 'future loss of income' is very meager. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶46

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondentInsurance company submits that the driver was not having driving license to drive the Transport vehicle i.e., LMV maxi cab. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

¶47

the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance

¶48

¶49

Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there is no need of transport endorsement in a case the vehicle involved is LMV. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted.

¶50

The contention of the learned counsel for the claimant is that the compensation awarded is very meager. On a perusal of the judgment and award, it is seen the compensation of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head of 'pain and sufferings' and the same is very meager. Looking into the nature of the injuries, it is appropriate to award additional compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶51

Thus, the claimant/appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,66,062 /- i.e., (Rs.2,16,062/-+ 50,000).

¶52

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶53

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i. MFA No.16/2017 is allowed in-part.

¶56

ii. MFA No.8615/2016 arising out of MVC No.90/2014 is dismissed.

¶57

iii. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 23.09.2016, passed in M.V.C No.90/2014, is hereby modified granting additional compensation of Rs.2,66,062/- as against Rs.2,16,062/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶58

iv. The Insurance company-respondent No.2 is directed to pay compensation amount with interest within six weeks from today.

¶59

v. The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶60

vi. The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

SKS

Sri Chikkanna v. N Prasanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chikkanna v. N Prasanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Director Vs B. Prabhuswamy @ Prabhu

The Divisional Controller Vs Puttaswamy

Mr. B.K.Ashraf Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

S Supriya Vs C Venugopal

Sri Shivalingam v Vs Sri N B Shivashankar

Smt.Manjamma Vs Muddaraju