Partly allowed

Smt. Thereshiya Sandhya v. Sri.Nagesh G K

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2023MFA/1071/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Miscellaneous First Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court of Karnataka held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal against a motor vehicle accident victim was inadequate. The Court allowed the appeal in part and granted an additional compensation of Rs. 30,000 along with interest to the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 30,000 along with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition to be granted.

Smt. Thereshiya Sandhya Vs Sri.Nagesh G K — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 1071 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1071 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. THERESHIYA SANDHYA D/O P P VARGIES AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O NOOJADI VILLAGE AND POST KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI.NAGESH G K S/O KARIBASAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YARS, R/O HARNALLI ROAD AYANOOR POST, SHIMOGA DISTRICT 2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD BRANCH OFFICE, 4THFLOOR, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD, HAMPANKATTA, MANGALORE REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.C. BETSUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED )

¶13

¶14

MFA No. 1071 of 2018

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE

¶16

JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.910/2015 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA), KUNDAPURA, SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

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

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is filed by the claimant against the Judgment and Award dated 13.10.2017 passed in MVC No.910/2015 by the Addl. Dist. Judge and Addl. MACT, Udupi (sitting at Kundapura), Kundapura (for brevity, referred to as 'the Tribunal'), praying for enhancement of compensation.

¶20

Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is heard for final disposal.

¶21

For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶22

¶23

MFA No. 1071 of 2018

¶24

The brief facts of the case are that on 19.07.2015

¶25

at about 8.00 a.m. the petitioner along with others was travelling in Maruthi Car bearing Registration No.KA-19-M-8006 from Bagvadi side towards Jadkal side carefully driven by its driver observing all traffic rules. When they reached near Bobbarya Temple, Vandse Village, Kundapura Taluk, a lorry bearing Registration No.KA-31-3535 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed from Kollur side and dashed to the car and as a result, all inmates of the car sustained injuries all over the body. The petitioner was immediately taken to K.M.C. Hospital, Manipal and she was treated as in-patient. Seeking compensation for the accidental injuries, the petitioner filed MVC No.910/2015 before the Tribunal.

¶26

The Tribunal clubbed MVC No.910/2015 along with other MVC cases filed by other inmates of the car. Upon issuance of notice, respondent No.1 did not appear and hence he was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2 filed written notes and citations. The Tribunal having heard learned counsel appearing for both side parties, having considered the oral and documentary evidence produced by the petitioners allowed the

¶27

¶28

MFA No. 1071 of 2018

¶29

petitions in part by granting compensation. The petitioner in MVC No.910/2015 was held entitled for global compensation of Rs.38,050/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 were held jointly and severally liable to pay the entire compensation with costs. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, seeking enhancement of compensation, the petitioner in MVC No.910/2015 has preferred the present appeal.

¶30

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

¶31

Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the compensation awarded to the petitioner under all the heads is meagre and hence, seeks for grant of enhanced compensation.

¶32

Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and prays for dismissal of the appeal filed by the complainant.

¶33

The Tribunal upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and hearing arguments has granted a

¶34

¶35

MFA No. 1071 of 2018

¶36

global compensation of Rs.38,050/- to the petitioner along with

¶37

interest. The medical evidence on record reveals that the claimant sustained following injuries:

¶38

" 1. Laceration of size 4 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm over right supraorbital region.

¶39

Laceration of size 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm over root of bone."

¶40

According to the doctor, the above injuries are

¶41

grievous in nature. The compensation granted under the incidental expenses like "conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges" and "loss of earning during treatment period" are on the lower side. Further some marginal amount ought to have been granted under the head "loss of amenities". Therefore, considering that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is found to be inadequate, in my opinion, if another sum of Rs.30,000/- is added that would meet ends of justice. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to additional compensation of Rs.30,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶42

¶43

MFA No. 1071 of 2018

¶44

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i. The appeal is allowed in part . ii. The impugned Judgment and Award dated 13.10.2017, passed in MVC No.910/2015, on the file of Addl. Dist. Judge and Addl. MACT, Udupi (sitting at Kundapura), Kundapura is modified to an extent that the appellant – claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.30,000/(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only), along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶47

iii. Registry is directed to send a copy of this Judgment to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶48

iv. Draw Award accordingly.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

sac*

Smt. Thereshiya Sandhya v. Sri.Nagesh G K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Thereshiya Sandhya v. Sri.Nagesh G K

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

Asif Khan Vs Mahadeva

Syed Salman Vs Rajegowda

Chief Executive Officer Vs Sri. K. Adinarayana

Mr Srinivas Vs Magma Hdi General

The Legal Manager Vs Mr Krishnappa Poojary

Avinash B. R. Vs Karthik