Remanded

Sri Ankesh v. Liberty Videocon

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2022MFA/229/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging a compensation award. The court remanded the matter to the Tribunal to enable the claimant to produce documentary evidence proving termination or resignation to afford an opportunity for considering compensation under 'Loss of Future Income' and 'Loss of Earning Capacity' heads.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and award of the Tribunal are set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration upon production of evidence regarding the claimant's employment discontinuance.

Sri Ankesh Vs Liberty Videocon — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

M.F.A.No.229/2018 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI ANKESH S/O. PRABHAKARA G.A. AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDENT OF: ANKEGOWDANADODDI GOTTIGEHALLI POST HAROHALLI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159

¶9

… APPELLANT (BY SRI GIRIMALLAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

LIBERTY VIDEOCON GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., NO.1, ALYSSA, 1^ST FLOOR REAR PORTION OLD NO.28, NEW NO.23 RICHMOND ROAD BENGALURU - 560 025

¶12

SRI KRISHNA MURTHY M.P. S/O. PUTTASWAMY, MAJOR (AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT) RESIDENT OF: MUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE MEDAMARANAHALLI POST HAROCHALLI HOBLI

¶13

¶14

KANAKAPURA ROAD BENGALURU - 562 117

¶15

… RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI O.MAHESH, ADV. FOR R1 (VC); NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPESED WITH V/O DTD.26.02.2020)

¶17

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC No.2149/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SCJ & XIX ACMM MEMBER MACT, BENGALURU C/C OF II ADDITIONAL JUDGE & XXVIII ACMM, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE 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.2149/2016 dated 01.09.2017 by the II Additional Judge & XXVIII Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT (SCCH-13), Bengaluru, seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶22

¶23

The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶24

The claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of the MV Act in MVC No.2149/2016, contending that on 01.03.2016, at about 6.30 p.m., near Indian Oil Petrol Bunk, NH-209 Road, Harohalli Town of Kanakapura Taluk, the driver of Hyundai car bearing registration No.KA-05-MS-3978 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-05-X-7220, due to which, the rider of the motorcycle fell down and sustained multiple fracture injuries. Immediately, the injured was shifted to Sai Ram Hospital, Bangalore, then to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore for higher treatment. He took treatment as an in-patient and underwent surgeries for uniting of fracture injuries. In spite of best and costly treatment, the fracture injuries are not properly united and he become disabled. Therefore, he has preferred to file a claim petition in MVC No.2149/2016, seeking compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act.

¶25

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head 'Loss of Future Income' or 'Loss of earning capacity due to disability' as the appellant also constrained to leave the job by tendering a resignation. Therefore, the appellant has lost 'Loss of Future Income' due to multiple injuries sustained by him. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have awarded just and reasonable compensation, but not awarded the compensation under the said heads. He further submitted that the compensation awarded under the other heads also on the lower side. He further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head 'Loss of income during laid up period'. The same needs to be awarded. Therefore prays for enhancement of compensation by allowing the appeal, on the above grounds.

¶27

On the other hand, the learned counsel for

¶28

the respondent No.1/Insurance Company submitted that

¶29

¶30

there is no evidence before the Tribunal as to whether

¶31

the claimant has continued in the service or has remained terminated or has given resignation to the job. Therefore, under these circumstances, because of want of evidence in this regard, the observation of the Tribunal is correct in not awarding the compensation under the head 'Loss of Future Income'. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no fault on the part of the Tribunal. Further, it is submitted that the compensation awarded under the other heads is just and proper. Hence, do not call for any interference. Therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶32

5. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation

¶33

on four heads as follows:

¶34

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount (in Rs.)
1.	Pain and Sufferings including mental agony	40,000.00
2.	Medical expenses	1,79,418.00
3.	Loss of amenities of life, inconvenience, discomfort	25,000.00
4.	Conveyance, nourishment and nutritious food	25,000.00
	Total	2,69,418.00

¶35

¶36

The Tribunal has not awarded any

¶37

compensation under the heads 'Loss of Future Income' and 'Loss of Earning Capacity' due to disability, on the ground that there is no evidence before the Tribunal as to whether the appellant was continued in the service or was constrained to give up his job or he was terminated from the services. Under these circumstances, for want of evidence, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head 'Loss of Future Earning capacity'.

¶38

The observation made by the Tribunal in this regard for not awarding compensation under the head 'Loss of Future Earning Capacity' is correct for the reason that there is no evidence before the Tribunal to show that the appellant was terminated from service or he has given resignation to his employment. At this stage, the Court is of the considered opinion that if the matter is remanded to the Tribunal, enabling the appellant/claimant to produce any documentary evidence

¶39

¶40

to prove that he has discontinued his services because of termination by the Company or because of the appellant was constrained to give resignation and has not continued with services, the Tribunal to consider the same in accordance with law. Therefore, in order to give one more opportunity on this aspect, the matter is required to be remanded to the Tribunal, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter. Therefore, in this regard, Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, in accordance with law, as observed above.

¶41

However, the appellant/claimant is not entitled interest for the period of prosecuting the appeal. The appeal is filed on 03.01.2018. Therefore, the appellant/claimant is not entitled for the interest from 03.01.2018 till this date. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶42

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i. The appeal is allowed.

¶45

ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.2149/2016 is hereby set-aside.

¶46

iii. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, in accordance with law, as observed above.

¶47

iv. However, the appellant/claimant is not entitled for the interest from 03.01.2018 till today.

¶48

v. Both the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 07.09.2022, without expecting any notice from the Tribunal.

¶49

vi. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the case within a period of six months from 07.09.2022.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

JUDGE

¶52

Sri Ankesh v. Liberty Videocon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ankesh v. Liberty Videocon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Director Vs Shri Yogesha K L @ Yogesh K L

Shri Yogesha K L @ Yogesh K L Vs the Managing Director

Legal Manager Vs Hanumanthaiah

Nithyananda Shetty K Vs Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.

Siddaramu K @ Siddaramaiah K Vs Praveen M N

Mohammed Ibrahim Vs Universal Sompo Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.