Partly allowed

Sri Chandrappa v. Universal Sompoo General

Karnataka HC30 Nov 2022MFA/7099/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a compensation award under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the High Court found the original sum insufficient. The court enhanced the total compensation awarded to the claimant from Rs. 24,000 to Rs. 44,000 and directed the insurance company to deposit the enhanced amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 24,000 to Rs. 44,000 with interest at 6% p.a. directed to be deposited by the insurer.

Sri Chandrappa Vs Universal Sompoo General — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 7099 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7099 OF 2012 (MV-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O NARAYANAPPA BETTAHALASUR NARAYANAPURA BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-561247.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. ANANTHRAM C., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

UNIVERSAL SOMPOO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD KVD TOWERS, 7/3 2ND FLOOR ABOVE BARDAYS FINANCE, OPP 100 FT ROAD, OLD MADRAS ROAD INDIRA NAGAR BANGALORE – 560038.

¶13

Digitally signed by C MALATHI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SMT SHANTHA K V MAJOR POOJARI LAYOUT, RMV 2ND STAGE BANGALORE – 560094.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 OS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 7/9/15)

¶17

¶18

MFA No. 7099 of 2012

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.04.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.4736/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND XVIII ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

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 18.04.2012 passed by the MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.4736/2010.

¶23

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 16.05.2010, the claimant was a pillion rider, his son was riding the Maruthi Suzuki Swift bearing Registration No.KA-04-U-7618, slowly and carefully, on Bettalsoor Rajanakunte Main road and when they reached near Addiganahalli (Kempegowda Poullry farm), at about 02.30 p.m., the driver of the Maruthi Swift bearing Registration No.KA-04-ME-576 drove the same in

¶24

¶25

MFA No. 7099 of 2012

¶26

a high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶27

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

¶28

On service of notice, the respondent No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. The age, avocation and income of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed

¶29

¶30

MFA No. 7099 of 2012

¶31

by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

The respondent No.2 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed exparte.

¶33

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

¶34

Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. On behalf of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document was produced. 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 compensation of Rs.24,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶35

and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the

¶36

¶37

MFA No. 7099 of 2012

¶38

compensation amount along with interest. Being

¶39

aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶40

The learned counsel for the claimant has

¶41

contended that due to the accident, the claimant has suffered three grievous injuries. He has spent more than Rs.23,975/- for medical expenses. He has suffered lot of pain during the treatment. The compensation of Rs.24,000/- granted by the Tribunal is on lower side. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶42

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. He has not examined the doctor. Therefore, considering the evidence of the claimant and injuries suffered by him, the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable compensation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶43

¶44

MFA No. 7099 of 2012

¶45

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶46

perused the records.

¶47

It is not in dispute that the claimant has

¶48

sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶49

Due to the accident, he has sustained dislocation of his left foot. He has not examined the doctor. He has spent more than Rs.23,975/- for medical expenses. He has suffered lot of pain during the treatment. Therefore, considering the evidence of claimant, considering the medical bills and the injuries suffered by the claimant, I am of the opinion that in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, Rs.20,000/- has been awarded with interest at 6% per annum..

¶50

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part .

¶51

The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶52

¶53

MFA No. 7099 of 2012

¶54

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of

¶55

Rs.44,000/-.

¶56

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.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

¶59

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 64

Sri Chandrappa v. Universal Sompoo General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chandrappa v. Universal Sompoo General

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 Naveen Alwyn Lasrado Vs the Branch Manager

Rangamma Vs Doddaiah Y

Heena Kousar Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Smt Mallamma Vs Ibrahim Hussen

Sri Nagarajappa Vs Sri. Nagendra N

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