Partly allowed

Smt Tanuja v. Sri Nandeesh C G

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2022MFA/3516/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act regarding a motor accident, the High Court held the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to be low. The Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 45,240 to Rs. 1,05,240 for medical bills, disability, and pain, directing the insurer to deposit the amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed in part. The total compensation was enhanced to Rs. 1,05,240. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit this amount with 6% p.a. interest.

Smt Tanuja Vs Sri Nandeesh C G — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 3516 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3516 OF 2012(MV-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT TANUJA AGED 37 YEARS W/O PURUSHOTHAM R/AT DOOR NO.281 MIG 4TH CROSS, 1ST BLOCK RAMAKRISHNA NAGARA, MYSORE

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.M N MADHUSUDHAN.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI NANDEESH C G AGED 22 YEARS S/O GOVINDAIAH R/AT NO.1038, A BLOCK 3RD STAGE, 2ND CROSS DATTAGALLI MYSORE.

¶13

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

H C KRISHNA AGED 36 EYARS S/O CHOWDEGOWDA NO.482, 1ST BLOCK

¶16

¶17

MFA No. 3516 of 2012

¶18

RAMAKRISHNA NAGARA MYSORE.

¶19

THE RELIANCE GEN INSURANCE CO LTD., NO.36/D, 1ST FLOOR OPP KSRTC BUS STAND MYSORE TRADE CENTRE MYSORE.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.D.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3: NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 21.03.2017)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV

¶23

ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD

¶24

DATED:3.10.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.269/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-4, ADDITIONAL MACT, MYSORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

MFA No. 3516 of 2012

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 3.10.2011 passed by MACT, Mysore in MVC 269/2011.

¶30

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 12.8.2010 when the claimant was proceeding on TVS XL moped bearing registration No.KA-09-ET-83 from Vasu Extension to Vivekananda Road, at that time, goods auto bearing registration No.KA09-B-2298 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶31

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent huge amount towards medical expenses,

¶32

¶33

MFA No. 3516 of 2012

¶34

conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶35

On service of notice, the respondents appeared

¶36

through counsel and filed written statements in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

¶37

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW1 and Dr.Harsha.C.K. was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a

¶38

¶39

MFA No. 3516 of 2012

¶40

compensation of Rs.45,240/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶41

The learned counsel for the claimant has contended that claimant has sustained fracture of shaft right femur and fracture of distal end of radius right. PW2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 37.5% to upper limb. Due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 11 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment. He has produced medial bills at Ex.P7. Considering the nature of injuries, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶42

¶43

MFA No. 3516 of 2012

¶44

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the injuries sustained by the claimant are minor in nature. He was working at Government Pre University College, Belagola and after recovering from injuries, he has continued his employed and there is no loss of income. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not granted any compensation for 'loss of future income'. Considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable compensation and it does not call for interference. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶46

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 12.8.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶47

¶48

MFA No. 3516 of 2012

¶49

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained fracture of shaft right femur and fracture of distal end of radius right. PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 37.5% to upper limb. Due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 11 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment. He has produced medial bills at Ex.P7. Therefore, considering the age and avocation of the claimant and considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, I am inclined to award compensation of Rs.60,000/- in addition to compensation of Rs.45,240/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶50

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part .

¶51

The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶52

¶53

MFA No. 3516 of 2012

¶54

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.105,240/-.

¶55

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment .

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

¶58

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 39

Smt Tanuja v. Sri Nandeesh C G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Tanuja v. Sri Nandeesh C G

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

Sri Nagarajappa Vs Sri. Nagendra N

Mr K Praveen S/O Krishnappa Vs Mr Nagappa S/O Channappa

Sri Chandrappa Vs Universal Sompoo General

Sri. Siddharatha Vs Sri. Narayanappa

Anwar Pasha Vs the Manager

Mr Prabhu Shankar @ Prabhu Sharkar Vs the Regional Manager