Dismissed

Sri Madhava v. Sri Santhosh Devadiga

Karnataka HC31 Oct 2023MFA/219/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant sought enhancement of compensation awarded for a 2010 motor accident. This court held the trial court's assessment of disability and compensation heads was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation is dismissed. The trial court record is to be returned to the Tribunal.

Sri Madhava Vs Sri Santhosh Devadiga — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:38967 MFA No. 219 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 219 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI MADHAVA S/O NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT KIRIMANJESHWARA VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI.NAGARAJA HEGDE.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI SANTHOSH DEVADIGA

¶12

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

¶13

S/O MANJUNATHA DEVADIGA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶14

R/AT JOGU MANE, KODERI, KIRIMANJESHWARA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK-576 201 UDUPI DISTRICT

¶15

UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., NO.201-208, CRYSTAL PLAZA, OPP: INFENITY, MALL LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (WEST) MUMBAI-400 058

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S.SHIVARAME GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE SERVED TO R-1 BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:38967 MFA No. 219 of 2017

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED08/08/2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.523/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION ETC

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This is an appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.523/2014 dated 08.08.2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Kundapura.

¶22

The claim petition is filed seeking compensation

¶23

of an amount of Rs.9,20,000/- for the injuries sustained

¶24

by the claimant in the accident. It is the case of the claimant that on 06.05.2010 at about 2.00 p.m. while he was traveling as passenger in autorickshaw from Nagoor

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:38967 MFA No. 219 of 2017

¶26

towards Halageri road, the driver of the autorickshaw had driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the autorickshaw turtle and fell down on the road. He had sustained injuries and he had spent huge amounts for the treatment. The court below considering the injuries sustained by the claimant i.e, fracture of right zygoma and fracture of his left leg and other injuries had granted an amount of Rs.40,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. When it comes to medical expenses, basing on the medical bills, Ex.P-8 granted an amount of Rs.12,943/-

¶27

and towards food and nourishment granted an amount of Rs.4,000/- and towards conveyance granted an amount of Rs.3,000/- and towards attendant charges an amount of Rs.3,000/-. Altogether the court below had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.22,940/-. It is the case of the claimant that he was earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month and no evidence was placed, the court below had taken Rs.5,000/- and granted an amount of Rs.25,000/- for a period of five months towards loss of income during the laid up period. When it comes to the

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:38967 MFA No. 219 of 2017

¶29

disability, as per Ex.P-10 and Ex.P-11, the Orthopaedic Surgeon of Chinmayi Hospital, Kundapura opined that he suffered disability of 12% to the left leg. The court had taken 8% as disability and applied multiplier of 16 and granted an amount of Rs.76,800/- towards loss of income due to disability and towards loss of amenities an amount of Rs.15,000/- was granted. Altogether compensation of an amount of Rs.1,79,740/- was granted.

¶30

Learned counsel for the claimant submits when

¶31

the doctor has opined that there is 12% disability, that court below has taken it as 8%. It is submitted that as he is working as mason and earning an amount of Rs.15,000/-, the court below had taken meager amount of Rs.5,000/- as income and granted the compensation. It is submitted that even under the other heads also, the compensation that were granted was not reasonable.

¶32

Learned counsel for the insurance company

¶33

submits that basing on the evidence, the court below had

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:38967 MFA No. 219 of 2017

¶35

rightly granted the compensation. He submits that as per the evidence of the doctor, there is 12% disability is to left leg and 1/3^rd has to be taken for the whole body and even on that count also, the Tribunal had taken disability as 8% which is on the higher side. It is submitted that no grounds are made out for enhancement of the compensation.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel on either

¶37

side, perused the entire material on record. The claimant

¶38

had sustained two fractures and for that, the court had granted an amount of Rs.40,000/- under the head of pain and suffering and this court finds no reasons to interfere. Even for medical expenses, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges the court below considering the evidence, basing on the medical bills granted an amount of Rs.22,940/-, which is also a reasonable amount. Then coming to the income, according to the claimant, he was earning an amount of Rs.15,000/-, no evidence is adduced in that regard. This

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:38967 MFA No. 219 of 2017

¶41

is an accident of the year 2010 and in that case, the court below had rightly considered an amount of Rs.5,000/- as income and granted compensation of an amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head of loss of income during the laid up period, no interference is called for under the said head. Then coming to the disability applying the income at Rs.5,000/- and disability also, the court below had rightly taken 8% and granted an amount of Rs.76,800/-. Towards loss of amenities an amount of Rs.15,000/- was granted and under all the heads the amounts that were

¶42

granted by the Tribunal are just and reasonable and this court finds no reasons to interfere.

¶43

(i) Accordingly the appeal filed by the claimant

¶44

is Dismissed .

¶45

(ii) The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Record to the Tribunal along with the certified copy of the order passed by this court forthwith without any delay.

¶46

(iii) No Costs

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:38967 MFA No. 219 of 2017

¶49

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶50

SD/JUDGE

¶51

TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Sri Madhava v. Sri Santhosh Devadiga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Madhava v. Sri Santhosh Devadiga

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

Mr Kurshad Alam Vs the Manaing Director

B. E. Chandrashekar Vs Thejus

Sri Anand Kumar M Vs the Director

Rangamaanar Vs C.R. Prasanna Kumar

Guru Swamy Vs the Branch Manager

Sri. Shankar Vs Sri. Riyaz Khan