Partly allowed

Nataraja M Kasetty v. Manohar

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2022MFA/3935/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Special Judicial Magistrate allowed part of an appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against a compensation award. The court enhanced the compensation from Rs.1,91,500 to Rs.2,31,500 under several heads including pain, suffering, and loss of amenities.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs.2,31,500 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing.

Nataraja M Kasetty Vs Manohar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3935/2012 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NATARAJA M KASETTY S/O M.B. KASETTY 63 YEARS, BUSINESSMAN R/O HOUSE NO.110/31 MISSION COMPOUND SHIVAMOGGA.

¶8

… APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI.K.CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE )

¶10

AND:

¶11

MANOHAR S/O SHIVARUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS DRIVER & OWNER OF HERO HONDA SPLENDER R/O MARALA GHATTA KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577101.

¶12

… RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI.B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:31.01.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1060/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK

¶15

¶16

COURT-III, ADDITIONAL MACT-IV, SHIVAMOGGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the appellant-claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 31.01.2012, passed in MVC No.1060/2010, on the file of Fast Track-III And Additional MACT-IV, Shivamogga, seeking enhancement.

¶20

Brief facts:

¶21

It is stated that on 30.01.2020 at about 8.00 p.m., when the petitioner was crossing B.H. Road near the road divider, opposite to M.B. Kasetty And Sons, beside Bank of Baroda, at that time, the respondent being the rider-cum-owner of the vehicle i.e., Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-18/R-3572 came from A.A. Circle by riding his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed and in a wrong side

¶22

¶23

of the road and dashed against the petitioner and caused the accident and the respondent ran away from the spot.

¶24

It is further stated that due to the said accident he sustained injuries taken treatment at Mallikarjuna Nursing home where he has taken treatment as inpatient. He has undergone surgery and implants are fixed and he spent about Rs.60,000/- for medical expenses apart from other expenses. He was aged about 61 years and doing business and earning Rs.30,000/- per month.

¶25

Hence, a claim petition was filed by the appellant under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the petition in part, and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,96,500/-, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Tribunal held respondent-owner cum rider, liable to pay the compensation.

¶26

¶27

Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent and perused the materials on record.

¶28

The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submitted that the appellant was aged 70 years and was a businessman and therefore awarded compensation, which is on lesser side. Therefore, prays for enhancement of compensation.

¶29

On the otherhand, the learned counsel for the respondent-owner submitted that the amount of compensation awarded is correct and proper. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the quantum. Hence, requests for dismissal of the appeal.

¶30

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

¶31

as follows:

¶32

Pain, Injuries And Suffering	: Rs.	30,000/-
Medical Expenses	: Rs.	1,13,000/-
Future Medical Expenses	: Rs.	8,000/-
Loss of Earnings	: Rs.	10,500/-
Loss of Earning due to disability	: Rs.	20,000/-
Loss of amenities in future life	: Rs.	10,000/-
TOTAL	: Rs.	1,91,500/-

¶33

¶34

The records proves the fact that the appellant had sustained fracture of both bones in the right leg i.e., tibia and fibula. Therefore, the compensation awarded under the head ‘pain and suffering’ in on lesser, the same is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-.

¶35

The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,13,000/towards ‘medical expenses, including conveyance, nourishment and other incidental expenses’. As per the medical records, it is seen that the appellant – claimant has produced medical bills for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- and the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards incidental expenses. The amount awarded towards ‘medical expenses’ at Rs.1,10,000/- is as per the medical records and therefore needs no interference. However, towards ‘ Incidental Expenses And Conveyance Charges’ Rs.3,000/- awarded is on lower side and therefore a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded .

¶36

The Tribunal has held monthly income of Rs.3,500/- per month. But considering the year of the

¶37

¶38

accident occurred in the year 2010, a notional income of Rs.5,500/- is adopted as per the chart of Karnataka State Legal Services Authorities and considering the period of treatment as three months, the ‘ loss of income during laid up period ’ would be Rs.16,500/- (Rs.5,500 x 3 months).

¶39

The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards ‘ loss of future earning capacity due to disability ’. Considering the age of the appellant as 70 years as on the date of the accident and considering 50% disability to the appellant, the amount awarded under the said head is correct and therefore there is no need for interference.

¶40

The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.8,000/- towards ‘ Future Medical Expenses’, which is on lower side and hence a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the said head.

¶41

Further, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘ loss of

¶42

¶43

amenities ’ at Rs.10,000/- is also justified and requires no interference. Hence, the appellant is entitled for a total enhanced compensation, under various heads as follows:

¶44

Pain, Injuries And Suffering	: Rs.	50,000/-
Loss of Earnings during laid up period (Rs.5,500 x 3 months)	: Rs.	16,500/-
Medical Expenses	: Rs.	1,10,000/-
Incidental Expenses and Conveyance Charges	: Rs.	10,000/-
Future Medical Expenses	: Rs.	15,000/-
Loss of future earning capacity due to disability	: Rs.	20,000/-
Loss of amenities in future life	: Rs.	10,000/-
TOTAL	: Rs.	2,31,500/-

¶45

Therefore, the appellant is awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,31,500/- as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,91,500/- (which is erroneously mentioned as Rs.1,96,500/-). Hence, the appellant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.40,000/- (Rs.2,31,500 – Rs.1,91,500), along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit.

¶46

¶47

16. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. The appeal is allowed in part .

¶50

ii. The appellant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.40,000/- (Rs.2,31,500 – Rs.1,91,500), along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit.

¶51

iii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶52

iv. Draw award accordingly.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

Nataraja M Kasetty v. Manohar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nataraja M Kasetty v. Manohar

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

C P Parvathi Ponnappa Vs Ravi S/O Lakshmanegowda

Mallesha @ Malleshappa Vs Annappa

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt M Shivamma

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Devaraju

Sri Praneyata Sharma Vs the Manager

Branch Manager Vs Hemachandra Gowda S/O Late Narayana Gowda