Partly allowed

Sri C P Nagaraj v. Sri Chandrashekar S T

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2022MFA/9446/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Court allowed the appeal partly, modifying the judgment of the Claims Tribunal. The court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 1,37,200 to Rs. 1,77,200 after examining medical evidence and injuries, directing the insurance company to deposit the amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation to Rs. 1,77,200 awarded; insurer directed to deposit amount with interest.

Sri C P Nagaraj Vs Sri Chandrashekar S T — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

MFA No.9446 OF 2011(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI C P NAGARAJ S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS PWD CONTRACTOR

¶9

RESIDING NEAR OLD DECCAN SCHOOL BEHIND COLONY VINOBANAGAR,SHIMOGA.

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI.PRAKASH M PATIL, ADV.)

¶12

AND

¶13

1 . SRI CHANDRASHEKAR S T S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A BAPUJI NAGAR 5TH CROSS, SHIMOGA.

¶14

2 . THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSRUANCE COMPANY LTD BRANCH OFFICE, S.S.COMPLEX IST FLOOR (OPP MULARANGAPPA PETROLPUMP) B.H.ROAD, SHIMOGA

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT.GEETHA RAJ, ADV. FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DATED: 10.02.2015)

¶17

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:06.07.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.398/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURTIII, ADDITIONAL MACT-IV, SHIVAMOGGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

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 06.07.2011 passed by the MACT, Shivamogga in MVC No.398/2010.

¶22

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

¶23

briefly stated are that on 05.01.2009 at about 04.35 p.m., when the clamant was so proceeding from Savalanga road on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-14/Q-5232 and when he was so proceeding in front of the Housing Co-operative Society near Shivamurthy Circle, at that time, the driver cum

¶24

¶25

owner of the Bajaj Auto bearing Registration No.KA14/6201 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed came from opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶26

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.

¶27

On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the

¶28

¶29

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

¶30

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 PW-1 and Dr. Umesh Kamath was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P24. On behalf of the respondents, two witnesses were examined as RW-1 and RW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the

¶31

¶32

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.1,37,200/- 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, the present appeal has been filed.

¶33

The learned counsel for the claimant has contended that due to the accident, the claimant has suffered fracture of left wrist, fracture of third metacarpal on the left, fracture of 6^th metacarpal on the right and condyle fracture of right knee. He was inpatient in the hospital for a period of 4 days. He has suffered lot of pain during the treatment. Considering the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶34

¶35

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for

¶36

the Insurance Company has contended that the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. He was inpatient in the hospital only for a period of 4 days. Therefore, considering the documents available on record and considering the evidence of PW-1, the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable compensation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶38

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

¶39

Due to the accident, the claimant has sustained fracture of left wrist, fracture of third metacarpal on

¶40

¶41

the left, fracture of 6^th metacarpal on the right and condyle fracture of right knee. He was inpatient in the hospital for a period of 4 days. He has suffered lot of pain during the treatment. Therefore, considering the evidence of PW-1, considering the medical bills, discharge summary and the injuries suffered by the claimant, I am of the opinion that in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, another Rs.40,000/- can be awarded with interest.

¶42

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part . The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶43

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,77,200/- against Rs.1,37,200/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶44

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition

¶45

¶46

till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks

¶47

from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

HA/-

Sri C P Nagaraj v. Sri Chandrashekar S T

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C P Nagaraj v. Sri Chandrashekar S T

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

Ramesha Vs Premakka

Rathnamma Vs Premakka

Mr. Ramesh Vs Mr. Irshad Ahamed

Noorjan Vs Mohammed Rafiq Gangolli

Smt Rajeshwari Bayi @ Rajeshwari Vs Sathyanarayana B.N.

Arun Gadag Vs M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd.