Partly allowed

Shankara Poojary v. Harish Devadiga

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2023MFA/2891/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed this Motor Vehicles Act appeal partly. The Court modified the Tribunal's judgment, enhancing the claimant's compensation from Rs. 1,50,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 and reduced the interest rate to 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 awarded; interest rate reduced to 6% per annum; Insurance Company directed to deposit amount within six weeks.

Shankara Poojary Vs Harish Devadiga — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:42048 MFA No. 2891 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2891 OF 2020 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHANKARA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O. VEERA POOJARY R/O. MATHUSHREE NILAYA KOTA POST, GILIYARU VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576101.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY MISS. SWATHI G HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

HARISH DEVADIGA S/O. MOHAN DEVADIGA R/O. H.NO. 3-41, GOVEHADIMANE ALSEKEREBETTU, GILIYARU VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576101.

¶13

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD, BRANCH OFFICE, SALIGRAMA UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT- 576101, REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER …RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI.RAVISH BENNI., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:42048 MFA No. 2891 of 2020

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:29.07.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.921/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

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

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles

¶20

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.07.2019 passed by MACT, Kundapura in MVC No.921/2017.

¶21

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 21.08.2017 at about 10.30 a.m., the claimant was standing in the mud road in Giliyaru Village, Opposite Shambhavi School of NH-66. At that time, respondent No.1 being the rider of the motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-20-EH-9697 rode the sasme from Veterinary Hospital towards Kota side and in wrong

¶22

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:42048 MFA No. 2891 of 2020

¶23

direction in high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶24

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 charges, 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.

¶25

On service of notice, the respondent No.2 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 quantum of compensation claimed by the

¶26

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:42048 MFA No. 2891 of 2020

¶27

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

¶28

The respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed exparte.

¶29

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 got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined but got exhibited a document namely Ex.R1. 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.1,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the

¶30

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42048 MFA No. 2891 of 2020

¶31

compensation amount along with interest. Being

¶32

aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the claimant has contended that due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries. He has spent more than Rs.40,878/- for medical treatment. He has suffered lot of pain during the treatment. The compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- granted by the Tribunal is on lower side. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶34

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has contended that the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. Even though the claimant has produced disability certificate, he has not examined the doctor to prove the disability. Therefore, considering the evidence of the claimant and injuries suffered by him, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. He further contended that in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of

¶35

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:42048 MFA No. 2891 of 2020

¶36

Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others –v- Venkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed

¶37

of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher side. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶38

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

¶39

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 21.08.2017 due to rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.

¶40

As per Wound Certificate and Discharge Summery, the claimant has sustained fracture of head of left fibula and lateral condyle and he also sustained five simple injuries. He has produced Disability Certificate marked at Ex.P8, which shows that the claimant suffered 8% disability and he has spent more than Rs.40,878/- for medical treatment. Therefore, considering the evidence of

¶41

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:42048 MFA No. 2891 of 2020

¶42

the claimant, 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, Rs.50,000/- is awarded with 6% interest per annum.

¶43

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶46

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶47

d) In view of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘MS.JOYEETA BOSE’ (supra) , the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum.

¶48

e) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:42048 MFA No. 2891 of 2020

¶50

¶51

date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

¶54

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 4

Shankara Poojary v. Harish Devadiga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankara Poojary v. Harish Devadiga

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

Sri H B Rajaram Vs Sri C Lakshminarayana

Sri Sheik Babu Vs Sri Raghushankar

Sri S Soundararajan Vs Mr v Nagaraj

Sri B M Gangadhar Vs Sri Raju

Mr Nagarjun Kumar v Vs M/S New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Sri Rangaswamy Vs Sri Srinivasa