Partly allowed

N Vivekaradhya v. D Ramu

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2023MFA/1133/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the first appeal in part against a motor accident judgment, enhancing the compensation awarded by the tribunal from Rs.43,500 to Rs.95,000 due to inadequacy regarding pain, suffering, amenities, and attendant charges. The insurance company was directed to pay the enhanced amount.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs.95,000/- payable by the Insurance Company within six weeks with 6% interest.

N Vivekaradhya Vs D Ramu — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 1133 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1133 OF 2014 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

N.VIVEKARADHYA

¶9

S/O.B.NAGARAJAMURTHY ARADHYA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT D.NO.399,"B" BLOCK JALAPURI, MYSURU CITY MYSURU - 570 001

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI D.S.HOSMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

D.RAMU S/O.LATE DEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO.329, KALLACHAVADI BEEDI ALAGUDI VILLAGE T.NARASIPURA TALUK – 571 313

¶14

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

MAHADEVASWAMY @ MAHESHA S/O.CHIKKALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT T.DODDAPURA VILLAGE T NARASIPURA TALUK – 571 313

¶16

MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, SHIVARAMPET MYSURU - 570 001

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SMT.MANJULA N.TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶19

¶20

MFA No. 1133 of 2014

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.105/2013 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, MYSURU AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 19.10.2013 passed in MVC No.105/2013 by VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru (for short ‘the Tribunal’). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation.

¶25

Though this matter is listed for admission, with consent of both learned counsel, matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶26

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal.

¶27

Brief facts of the case is as under:

¶28

On 11.01.2012, the claimant had been to T.Narasipura in order to go to Taakadu. He boarded one passenger auto bearing registration No.KA 55-726 which was going towards Talakadu from T.Narasipura. On T.Narasipura-Talakadu main

¶29

¶30

MFA No. 1133 of 2014

¶31

road, in front of Kempanna’s Hotel at Hiriyur village, respondent No.1 drove the said passenger auto in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to electrical pole, due to which, the accident occurred and in the said accident, one Pushpa, W/o.Suresh died on the spot and other passengers sustained bleeding injuries and the claimant also sustained fracture injuries to his left shoulder and also injuries to his right shoulder, chest, face and head etc. then he was shifted to T.Narasipura Hospital and as advised by the Doctor, he was admitted to K.R.Hospital, Mysuru on the same day and then admitted to Vatsalya Hospital upto 16.01.2012 as an inpatient and undergone surgery for the fractured bone of left shoulder and rod was inserted and another surgery was done for removal of implant i.e. rod.

¶32

4.1 It is stated that prior to occurrence of accident, the claimant was studying in B.Sc. III Semester in Mysuru Yuvaraja College and he was doing milk vending business and earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. After the accident, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant is unable to do any work as he could do prior to the accident and has

¶33

¶34

MFA No. 1133 of 2014

¶35

discontinued his education. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the tribunal seeking compensation.

¶36

4.2 On service of notice to the respondents, respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared through their counsel. Respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the passenger auto by respondent No.1, the claimant sustained fracture injuries on his body and admitted to different hospitals and taken treatment as an inpatient and also undergone surgery and also denied that the petitioner was doing milk vending business and his income as Rs.6,000/- per month and also the claimant sustained grievous injuries and suffered disability in the said accident. It is further stated that respondent No.1 was having driving licence at the time of accident and vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. Hence, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶37

4.3 Respondent No.3-Insurance Company has also filed

¶38

the written statement denying the case of the claimant. It is denied that when the claimant was traveling in passenger tempo on 11.01.2012 in front of Kempanna Hotel at

¶39

¶40

MFA No. 1133 of 2014

¶41

T.Narasipura Taluk, respondent No.1 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to electric pole, accident occurred and in the said accident, the claimant and other passengers sustained severe injuries and also denied that the claimant was admitted to K.R.Hospital and Vatsalya Hospital and undergone surgery and has spent huge amount towards his medical expenses and also denied that the claimant was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month prior to accident and also denied that the petitioner sustained disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident and discontinued his education. It is further stated that since 9 persons were traveling in the passenger tempo at the time of accident, the owner has clearly violated the policy conditions. The driver of the vehicle was also not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶42

4.4 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration. In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the case, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P.9, whereas respondents examined a witness as RW.1 and got

¶43

¶44

MFA No. 1133 of 2014

¶45

marked the R.C. particulars and Insurance Policy as Exs.R.1 and R2.

¶46

4.5 On the basis of material evidence both oral and documentary, the tribunal awarded total compensation of `43,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and held that respondent Nos.2 and 3 being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

¶47

4.6 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation amount awarded, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶48

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for appellant that the tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation ignoring the material on records both oral and documentary and also in not considering the exhibits produced at Exs.P1 to P9. It is the further contention of learned counsel for appellant that the tribunal has awarded meager compensation on the heads-pain and suffering, food, nourishment and attendant and no amount of compensation is awarded by the tribunal under the head loss

¶49

¶50

MFA No. 1133 of 2014

¶51

of amenities, so also, loss of income during laid up period. On these grounds, he seeks to allow the appeal and to enhance the compensation awarded by the tribunal.

¶52

Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company as well as the owner of the offending vehicle, in unison , contend that the tribunal has awarded suitable compensation on the basis of material placed on record and no evidence is adduced by the Doctor and no material is placed with regard to disability to prove that there is loss of income due to disability. Therefore, the tribunal is right in awarding the compensation and same does not call for interference.

¶53

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellantclaimant and learned counsel for respondents, the points that would arise for consideration before this Court are:

¶54

i) Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation?

¶55

ii) What order?

¶56

Having perused the entire material evidence both oral

¶57

and documentary and the impugned judgment and award and having heard the submissions of learned counsel, I am of the

¶58

¶59

MFA No. 1133 of 2014

¶60

opinion that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding meager compensation thereby point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the claimant. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled for marginal indulgence of enhancement of compensation for the reasons stated herein below:

¶61

(a) It is an admitted fact that the accident occurred on 11.01.2012. The occurrence of accident, involvement of vehicle and injuries suffered by the claimant are all not in dispute including laying of chargesheet against the offending vehicle and the liability of the Insurance Company, since the same are proved by producing documents at Exs.P1 to P8. The fact remains that the claimant has not examined the Doctor to prove the disability sustained by him, so also, he has not produced any medical evidence to show the disability sustained by him by virtue of any disability certificate. Under the circumstances, there are no material documents to pin-point the disability sustained by the claimant.

¶62

(b) The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head pain and suffering, which is on the lower side. It is seen that the claimant sustained fracture of left shoulder and

¶63

¶64

MFA No. 1133 of 2014

¶65

injury to right shoulder. Therefore, I am of the opinion that a sum of Rs.40,000/- is required to be awarded as against Rs.15,000/-.

¶66

(c) The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.24,000/- under the head medical expenses, which is on the basis of actual medical bills produced by the claimant at Ex.P6, which does not call for interference.

¶67

(d) The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,500/towards attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges, which is on the lowers side and the same requires to be enhanced to Rs.3,000/- .

¶68

(e) The tribunal has awarded Rs.3,000/- under the head loss of earning, though nothing material is placed on record to show that the claimant was an earning member. Admittedly, it is stated by the appellant-claimant that he was a student and was also doing part-time business of milk vending, but nothing material has been placed on record to establish the same. Hence, the same is retained.

¶69

(f) The tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities. The fact remains that the claimant has sustained

¶70

10 -

¶71

MFA No. 1133 of 2014

¶72

fracture and injuries and was inpatient for 06 days and due to the fracture and injuries sustained by him, it may not be possible for him to get back to his studies or to do milk vending job, which is anyway not proved. Nevertheless, a sum of Rs.25,000/- would be just and reasonable to award under the head loss of amenities.

¶73

In view of the above discussions, the claimant would

¶74

be entitled for enhancement of compensation as mentioned in

¶75

the table below:

¶76

Heads	As awarded by this Court(`)
Pain and suffering	40,000.00
Medical expenses	24,000.00
Attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges	3,000.00
Loss of earning	3,000.00
Loss of amenities	25,000.00
TOTAL	95,000.00

¶77

Accordingly, I pass the following :

¶78

ORDER

¶79

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part ;

¶80

ii) The judgment and award dated 19.10.2013 passed in MVC No.105/2013 by VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, is modified;

¶81

11 -

¶82

MFA No. 1133 of 2014

¶83

iii) The claimant is entitled for total compensation of **** **_95,000/-_** as against 43,500/- awarded by the tribunal;

¶84

iv) The enhanced compensation shall be paid by the Insurance Company from the date of petition till realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶85

v) The entire compensation awarded shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant;

¶86

vi) The interest component of 6% as awarded by the tribunal is retained, which shall be paid by the Insurance Company.

¶87

Sd/JUDGE

¶88

¶89

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

N Vivekaradhya v. D Ramu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Vivekaradhya v. D Ramu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B Rudrappa Vs Marappa

Smt. K P Sharanya Vs Sri B K Karthik

Smt M U Seema Vs Subhashchandra B

Smt N Malashree Vs Sri C N Nagaraju

Sri D S Gnana Murthy Vs Sri D a Suryanarayana

Sri Hary Fernandez Vs Sri K Manohara