Partly allowed

Syed Pasha v. Puttamadappa.M

Karnataka HC24 Jul 2023MFA/2964/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a first appeal in a motor accident claim, holding the tribunal did not sufficiently consider loss of income. The court enhanced the award by Rs.25,000 with interest and directed the insurer to deposit the amount within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Award enhanced by Rs.25,000 plus 6% per annum interest from filing of claim till realization, to be deposited by Insurance Company within four weeks.

Syed Pasha Vs Puttamadappa.M — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:25619 MFA No. 2964 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2964 OF 2022 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SYED PASHA, S/O. LATE SYED ABDUL RAZAK, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT: 4TH BLOCK, MUSLIM GAREEBI SITE, BESAGARAHALLI, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK-562 301.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI SHANTHARAJ K, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

PUTTAMADAPPA M, S/O MADAPPA, AGED MAJOR, R/AT: NO.199, MUDANAKUDU VILLAGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK-571 128.

¶14

UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, OPP. LIC OFFICE, KSRTC BUS STAND, RAMANAGARA-562 159.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI C SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DATED 24.07.2023)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:25619 MFA No. 2964 of 2022

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.11.2021 IN MVC NO.122/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

By the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal though it is posted for orders.

¶22

This appeal by the petitioner is directed against the judgment and award in MVC No.122/2017 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member, Additional MACT, Ramanagara, dated 18-11-2021, whereby, the compensation of Rs.29,000/has been awarded.

¶23

The petitioner contended that, on 18.02.2017 at

¶24

4.30 p.m, he was proceeding in his motor cycle bearing No. KA-11-S-9638 on B.M Road so as to reach Maddur and

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:25619 MFA No. 2964 of 2022

¶26

when he was waiting for traffic signal near Koppa Circle, the driver of the Hyundai Eon Car bearing Reg.No.KA-10M-2358 drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed on his back. As a result, petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, petitioner was admitted to Maddur Government Hospital, then to MIMS Hospital at Mandya and then to NIMHANS for treatment and he incurred expenses of more than Rs.2,00,000/- for treatment. It was further contended that petitioner was earning Rs.700/- per day as Welder and due to the accidental injuries he is unable to do his day-to-day work as he was doing earlier. Therefore, he claimed compensation from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

¶27

On issuance of notice by the Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner did not appear before the Tribunal despite service of notice by way of paper publication and therefore, he was placed exparte. The respondent No.2Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:25619 MFA No. 2964 of 2022

¶29

its written statement contending that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. However, it has admitted the issuance of policy in respect of Car in question and contended that the driver of the said Car was not having valid DL at the relevant time and the conditions of the policy are violated. Further, it was contended that, there is 3 days delay in lodging FIR and that the accident was not due to negligence of the driver, police and the petitioner have colluded with each other and falsely implicated the Car. It was also contended that the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest as sought for being highly exorbitant, the petition is to be dismissed.

¶30

The Tribunal on the basis of the above pleadings,

¶31

framed appropriate issues and the petitioner was examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked in evidence. Respondents have not led any evidence.

¶32

After hearing the arguments the Tribunal awarded

¶33

compensation of Rs.29,000/- under the following heads:

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:25619 MFA No. 2964 of 2022

¶36

Towards Pain and agony Rs.	10,000/-
Towards medical expenses of Rs.3,349/- + attendant charges + Food and nourishment Rs.	7,000/-
Towards loss of income during the course of treatment (for 1 months) (Rs.7,000/-x 1 month) Rs.	7,000/-
Towards conveyance Rs.	5,000/-
Total Rs.	29,000/-

¶37

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award,

¶38

the petitioner has approached this Court in appeal.

¶39

On issuance of notice, the respondent No.2Insurance Company has appeared through its counsel and notice to the respondent No.1 was dispensed with.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is abysmally low, incorrect and it has not properly assessed the compensation. He contends that the Tribunal should have considered the nature of the injury and the period of inpatient treatment.

¶41

Per contra learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company has contended that the

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:25619 MFA No. 2964 of 2022

¶43

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and

¶44

correct.

¶45

The petitioner had sustained tenderness over his left shoulder and a mild head injury. After diagnostic tests, it was opined that the injuries were simple. However the petitioner was inpatient for 7 days , aged about 44 years and was working as a Mechanic. He claimed that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month but, did not produce any proof of income. The Tribunal took notional income at Rs.7,000/- pm and awarded the compensation.

¶46

Considering the above aspects, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal did not consider the loss of income and his inability to pursue his avocation at least for a period of a month. Hence it would be proper and just to award a compensation of Rs.25,000/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal globally and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:25619 MFA No. 2964 of 2022

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶51

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by

¶52

the Tribunal is modified by awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶53

(iii) The respondent No.2-Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within four weeks from today.

¶54

(iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal remain unaltered.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

tsn*

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Syed Pasha v. Puttamadappa.M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Pasha v. Puttamadappa.M

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

A K Kumar Vs Raghu H M

Ravikumar Vs v J Jarj

The Ksrtc Vs Sri. Venkatesh

Mr Suresh D L Vs Sri Kenchaiah

Shankara Gowda Vs Smt. Sujatha

Nagaraju Vs K Gangadharaiah