Partly allowed

Sri Mahesh C S v. Sri Pavan G R

Karnataka HC27 Oct 2022MFA.CROB/53/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two appeals filed by the driver and owner of a vehicle against a motor vehicle accident judgment, the High Court modified the compensation of the injured claimant. The Court reduced the award by disallowing future loss of income and lowered the interest rate. The owner was directed to deposit the adjusted amount.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced to Rs. 2,00,000/- and interest scaled down to 6% p.a.; owner directed to deposit within six weeks.

Sri Mahesh C S Vs Sri Pavan G R — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.121 OF 2021(MV) c/w MFA CROB No. 53 OF 2022(MV)

¶7

IN MFA 121/2021

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

1 . PAVAN G R

¶10

S/O RANGASWAMY

¶11

AGE 36 YEARS

¶12

R/O GOLLARA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI

¶13

CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK

¶14

HASSAN DISTRICT – 34.

¶15

2 . RANGASWAMY C

¶16

S/O CHUNCHEGOWDA

¶17

AGE 52 YEARS

¶18

R/O GOLLARA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 34.

¶19

...APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K C., ADV.)

¶21

AND:

¶22

MAHESH C S S/O SHIVANANJE GOWDA

¶23

¶24

AGE 41 YEARS K S R T C DRIVER R/O CHIKKAMATHIGHATTA VILLAGE DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASAN DISTRICT - 07

¶25

…RESPONDENT

¶26

(BY SRI.P.NATARAJU, ADV.)

¶27

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 07.02.2020, PASSED IN MVC NO.466/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,47,477/- IN ALL WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9 PERCENT P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶28

IN MFA CROB 53/2022 BETWEEN:

¶29

SRI MAHESH C S AGED 43 YEARS S/O SHIVANANJEGOWDA R/AT CHIKKAMATHIGHATTA VILLAGE DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116.

¶30

(BY SRI. P NATARAJU, ADV.)

...CROSS OBJECTOR

AND:

1 . SRI PAVAN G R AGED 28 YEARS S/O RANGASWAY R/AT GOLLARA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116.

¶35

2 . SRI.RANGASWAMY C AGED 54 YEARS S/O CHUNCHEGOWDA R/AT GOLLARA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI.PRATHEEP K.C., ADV.)

¶38

THIS MFA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 R/W SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.02.2020 PASSED IN MVC.NO466/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶39

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

¶40

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

MFA No.121/2021 has been filed by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle and

¶43

MFA Crob.No.53/2022 has been filed by the claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) being aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.02.2020 passed by MACT, Channarayapatna in MVC No.466/2018.

¶44

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 23.11.2017 at about 12.30 p.m., when the claimant was proceeding towards Dyavanahalli Village on Kuruvanka-Gollarahosahalli road on his Hero Honda Splendor Plus motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-02-HE-3715 on the left side of the road, in front of Kuruvanka Kere Kodi, the rider of the Splendor Plus Bike bearing Registration No.KA-13-X-8290 rode the same in a rash and negligent manner from Gollarahosahalli side and has

¶45

¶46

dashed the bike of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶47

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 riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.

¶48

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 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

¶49

¶50

quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶51

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.Lokesh B. S. was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. On behalf of the respondents, two witnesses were examined as RW-1 and RW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,47,477/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the owner

¶52

¶53

of the offending vehicle to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed.

¶54

The learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle has raised the following contentions:

¶55

Firstly, it is not in dispute that the claimant was working as a driver in KSRTC. The claimant even after recovering from the injuries has continued in his service. There is no loss of income due to disability.

¶56

Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. He was treated as inpatient only for a period of 5 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain during 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 higher side.

¶57

¶58

Thirdly, in view of the Division Bench decision of

¶59

this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others –v- Venkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher side. Hence, he sought for reduction of compensation.

¶60

On the other hand, the learned counsel for

¶61

the claimant has contended that due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 5 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain during 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 enhancement of compensation.

¶62

¶63

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶64

and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶65

It is not in dispute that the claimant has

¶66

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

¶67

Due to the accident, the claimant suffered grievous injuries. At the time of the accident, he was working as a driver in KSRTC. The claimant even after recovering from the injuries has continued in his service. There is no loss of income due to disability. However, the Tribunal has erred in granting compensation towards loss of future income. Hence, the claimant is not entitled for the compensation of Rs.2,35,346/- awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘loss of future income’.

¶68

¶69

In respect of other heads are concerned, the compensation of Rs.1,12,131/(Rs.40,000/+ Rs.20,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.37,131/-) awarded by the Tribunal has to be enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/with 6% interest.

¶70

In the result, the appeals are disposed of. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶71

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- as against Rs.3,47,477/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶72

In view of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘MS.JOYEETA BOSE’ , the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% is scale down to 6%.

¶73

The owner of the offending vehicle 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.

¶74

¶75

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to

¶76

the Tribunal.

¶77

In view of disposal of the appeals, I.A.No.1/2021

¶78

does not survive for consideration. Hence, the same is

¶79

also disposed of.

¶80

Sd/JUDGE

¶81

HA/-

Sri Mahesh C S v. Sri Pavan G R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mahesh C S v. Sri Pavan G R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Master Mohammed Thameem Vs Mr. Sachin S Suvarna

Mr.Savitram Vs Mr.Ravishankar

Smt Eramma Vs the Regional Manager

Pavan G R Vs Mahesh C S

M/S Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt Revathi Shambu Shettigar

The Managing Director Vs Mallamma