Partly allowed

The Regional Manager v. Sri Suresh

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2022MFA/8830/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a First Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court held that the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to a pillion rider was excessive. The Court reduced the total award based on a reassessment of income and added compensation for the loss of income during the laid-up period.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and award dated 28.07.2018 is modified to award reduced compensation of Rs. 4,55,467/-.

The Regional Manager Vs Sri Suresh — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8830 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

THE REGIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REGIONAL OFFICE LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX 44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD BENGALURU-560 025 ...APPELLANT

¶6

(BY SMT.HARINI SHIVANAND, ADVOCATE)

¶7

AND:

¶8

SRI SURESH S/O.SANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.31, II CROSS BOVI COLONY, S.G.PALYA DRC POST

¶9

BENGALURU-560 029

¶10

SMT.SUSHMA V.REDDY MAJOR, NO.337 7^TH CROSS, II MAIN DOMLUR LAYOUT

¶11

BENGALURU-560 071 …RESPONDENTS

¶12

(BY SRI SHRIPAD V.SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 02.11.2022)

¶13

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT

¶14

¶15

PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.07.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1709/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.

¶16

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

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’ for brevity) by the appellant - Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 28.07.2018 passed in MVC No.1709/2017 on the file of the Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the tribunal’ for brevity).

¶19

Brief facts of the case is as under:

¶20

On 01.02.2017, at about 10.45 a.m., the claimant

¶21

was proceeding as a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA 18 X 9940 from S.G.Palya towards Sarjapur along with his son Nagaraj. When they reached near Carmelram Railway Station Circle, at that time, the driver of the car bearing registration No.KA 01 MA 5911 came from behind with high speed in a rash and negligent

¶22

¶23

manner and dashed against the claimant’s vehicle and caused accident. As a result, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, after the accident, the claimant was shifted to St.John’s Hospital wherein the claimant was treated as an inpatient upto 07.02.2017 and discharged with an advice for regular follow up treatment and bed rest. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he became disable and unable to do his work as he was working prior to the accident.

¶24

Hence, a claim petition was filed by the claimant 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.6,34,147/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The tribunal held that the appellant - Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶26

perused the materials on record.

¶27

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company submitted that the tribunal committed an error in allowing the petition by awarding the compensation to the claimant, which is excessive, exorbitant and arbitrary.

¶29

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-claimant submitted that respondent No.1-claimant was a pillion rider and was not riding the motor cycle. In this regard, the tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record. Therefore, there are no perversity found in the appreciation of the evidence made by the Tribunal. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶30

The tribunal has erred in assessing the income at Rs.20,000/- per month based on the salary certificate at Ex.P8. But the author of the said certificate is not examined. Except the said salary certificate, there is no evidence to show that the claimant was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by doing the fabricating work. Therefore, the income assessed by the tribunal is on the higher side. Considering this aspect and that the accident is of the year 2017, notional income ought to be taken as

¶31

¶32

Rs.11,000/- as determined by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority.

¶33

The claimant has suffered fracture of tibia and fibula to left leg and he was doing work as fabricator, for which, he requires physical strength. Due to the said fracture, the tribunal has assessed the permanent disability at 14%, which is found to be correct and the same is kept intact.

¶34

The age of the claimant was 45 years. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘14’. Hence, loss of future income is re-assessed as Rs.11,000/- and loss of future earning due to disability would be reduced to Rs.2,58,720/- (Rs.11,000/- x 14% x 14 x 12).

¶35

Considering the nature of injuries sustained, the compensation awarded on the other heads are correct and the same are kept intact.

¶36

The tribunal has not assessed any compensation under the head loss of income during laid up period. The claimant is working as a fabricator and he was inpatient for

¶37

¶38

a period of 7 days in the Hospital. Therefore, due to the injuries sustained by the claimant, he has not attended to his work for about three months and same has to be compensated. Therefore, Rs.33,000/- (Rs.11,000/- x 3) is awarded towards loss of income during laid-up period.

¶39

In view of the above, the compensation awarded

¶40

by the tribunal is modified as follows:

¶41

Pain and sufferings	Rs. 40,000/-	kept intact
Loss of future earning due to disability	Rs. 2,58,720/-
Medical expenses	Rs. 53,747/-	kept intact
Conveyance expenses, nourishment and nutritious food	Rs. 30,000/-	kept intact
Loss of amenities and unhappiness	Rs. 20,000/-	kept intact
Future medical expenses	Rs. 20,000/-	kept intact
Loss of earning during laid up period	Rs. 33,000/-
Total	*_Rs.4,55,467/-_

¶42

Therefore, the total compensation of Rs.6,34,147/- as

¶43

awarded by the tribunal is reduced to ***** Rs.4,55,467/- , I proceed to pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶46

ii. The impugned judgment and award dated

¶47

28.07.2018 passed in MVC No.1709/2017 on

¶48

***** Corrected Vide Court Order dated 16.01.2023

¶49

¶50

the file of the Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, is modified to an extent that the appellant – claimant is entitled for reduced compensation amount of * Rs.4,55,467/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit.

¶51

iii. Draw the award accordingly.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

¶54

Corrected Vide Court Order dated 16.01.2023

The Regional Manager v. Sri Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Regional Manager v. Sri Suresh

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

Shivegowda @ Shivanna Vs Divisional Controller

The Manager Vs Smt. Thaseen

Lakshmamma Vs Ramesh K. N.

T. Sudha Bai Vs K. H. Rajkumar

Siddaiah Vs S. K. Srinivas

Nandisha G M Vs the Managing Director