Partly allowed

Ravisha H S v. a R Chethan

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2022MFA/8160/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor vehicle accident appeal, the High Court of Karnataka modified the Tribunal's award, enhancing compensation from Rs.1,00,000 to Rs.2,05,700 for medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss of earnings due to 14% disability.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.2,05,700/- awarded, including medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities.

Ravisha H S Vs a R Chethan — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

M.F.A.No.8160 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAVISHA H.S., S/O. SIDDURAPPA, AGE : 37 YEARS R/O. HORALVADI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI NANJANGUD TALUK-571 401.

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI NAGARAJ R.C., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

A.R. CHETHAN S/O. RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/O. ARALAKUPPE VITTALAPURA K.R. PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 416.

¶13

SRI. SAI EARTH MOVERS NO.264, BETWEEN 17TH AND 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560 003.

¶14

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REG. AND HEAD OFFICE : NO.3, MIDDLETON STREET KOLKATA-700 071

¶15

¶16

BENGALURU DIVISION VII 982, 80 FEET, PERIPHERAL ROAD KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 034 REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3, NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 07.11.2022)

¶19

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 18.08.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.1115/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AND MACT, NANJANGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act' for short), challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1115/2016 dated 18.08.2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and MACT, Nanjangud.

¶23

¶24

The Tribunal after consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, has awarded global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶25

Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant has filed the present appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶26

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant

¶27

and the learned counsel for Respondent No.3-Insurance Company and perused the records.

¶28

5. The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶29

On 25.07.2016, at about 6.30 p.m., the petitioner

¶30

was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA09-EU-5854 along with one Basavanna as pillion rider on Gundlupet-Nanjangud Main Road to go to Naviluru Village. When he was going near Santhanaganapathi

¶31

¶32

Temple, near Sindhuvalli Gate, a Mahendra Goods auto bearing registration No.KA-04-D-2620, driven by its driver, came in a high speed, rash and negligent manner from back side and dashed the petitioner, causing the accident. Due to the impact, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Krishna Hospital, Nanjangud, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient from 25.07.2016 to 27.07.2016 and spent huge amount. Therefore, the claimant has filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal has erred in awarding the global compensation, which is inadequate. The Tribunal has not considered the injuries sustained by the claimant. Ex.P6 - wound certificate disclose that the petitioner has sustained fracture of right clavicle bone and 3rd metacarple bone of left palm are fractured, which are grievous in nature. The claimant has taken treatment as an inpatient from 25.07.2016 to

¶34

¶35

27.07.2016. PW2 doctor has stated that the claimant has suffered disability to the extent of 14% to the right shoulder. The Tribunal has not considered all these aspects. Therefore, prays for allowing the appeal.

¶36

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and do not call for any interference. Therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶37

In the present case, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries on account of the road traffic accident, which occurred on 25.07.2016. The wound certificate, documentary medical evidence and other medical records proves that the claimant has suffered fracture of right clavicle bone and 3rd metacarple bone of left palm.

¶38

PW2 - doctor has stated that the claimant has suffered 14% physical disability towards right shoulder.

¶39

¶40

It is stated that claimant was working as a cook and agriculturist and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The claimant has not produced any documents to prove his income. The accident is of the year 2016. The notional income of the claimant is to be assessed at Rs.9,500/- per month, as recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authorities, in the absence of any proof of income. Considering the injuries suffered by the claimant, the disability assessed by the Tribunal at 14% is just and proper, 1/3rd of the same i.e., 5% is to be considered for calculation of compensation under the head 'loss of income due to disability'. The claimant was aged about 35 years as on the date of accident. The appropriate multiplier applicable to his age group is '16'. Therefore, the 'loss of income due to disability' is assessed as under;

¶41

Rs.9,500x12x16x5/100=Rs.91,200/-. The same is

¶42

awarded under the head 'loss of income due to disability'.

¶43

¶44

The Tribunal has not awarded any

¶45

compensation under the heads 'pain and suffering', 'loss of amenities' and 'food, nourishment and conveyance charges'. The claimant has suffered disability to an extent of 14% to the right shoulder due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Considering the same, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded under the head 'Pain and suffering', A sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head 'loss of amenities' and a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head 'food, nourishment and conveyance charges'.

¶46

A sum of Rs.25,571/- awarded under the head 'medical expenses' is as per the medical bills produced by the claimant. The same is rounded off to Rs.26,000/-.

¶47

The claimant has suffered injuries on account

¶48

of the road traffic accident. He might have not attended the work at least for three months. Therefore a sum of

¶49

¶50

Rs.28,500/- (Rs.9500x3 months) is awarded under the

¶51

head 'loss of income during laid up period'.

¶52

Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for a total

¶53

compensation of Rs.2,05,700/as against

¶54

Rs.1,00,0000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The break-up is

¶55

as under:

¶56

SL.NO.	PARTICULARS	AMOUNT
01	Medical expenses and hospitalcharges	Rs.26,000-00
02	Painand suffering	Rs.40,000-00
03	Loss ofamenities	Rs.10,000-00
04	Loss of earning during laid up period	Rs.28,500-00
05	Loss of earning due to disability	Rs.91,200-00
06	Conveyance, attendant, food,nourishment charges	Rs.10,000-00
	Total compensation	Rs. 2,05,700-00

¶57

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i. The miscellaneous first appeal is allowed in part.

¶60

ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.1115/2016 is hereby modified.

¶61

¶62

iii. The claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,05,700/- as against Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶63

iv. The 3rd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶64

v. Costs made easy.

¶65

vi. Ordered accordingly.

¶66

vii. The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal along with trial court records, forthwith.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

Snc

Ravisha H S v. a R Chethan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravisha H S v. a R Chethan

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 Nandishappa Vs the Managing Director

Smt. S S Sudha Vs the Managing Director

Sri. Muneer Ahmed Khan Vs Sri. Mudasir @ Mudasir Khan

Smt. Savitha Vs Sri.K.v.Umashankar

Thippeshappa Vs the Managing Director

Manager Vs Savitha