High Court allowed Motor Vehicle First Appeal, upholding contributory negligence finding but enhancing compensation from Rs. 2,45,615 to Rs. 3,80,935/- by revising disability percentage and income assessment.
Compensation enhanced from Rs. 2,45,615 to Rs. 3,80,935/- with 6% interest. Response to deposit amount within 8 weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:38257 MFA No. 715 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 715 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. ANAND KUMAR M , S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO. 15, KRUTHIKA, 1ST CROSS, RAMAIAH NAGAR, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 78.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DSERT NO. 4, 100FT RING ROAD, BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BANGALORE - 85. (RC OWNER OF TATA SUMO BEARING REG NO. KA.05.G.6004)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SESHU. V, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
NC: 2023:KHC:38257 MFA No. 715 of 2017
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.5381/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES (SCCH-16), BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the claimant aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C.No.5381/2015 dated 22.09.2016 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and X Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes (SCCH-16), Bangalore. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident that took place on 21.11.2015.
at about 5:15 p.m., he was proceeding on his Honda Activa towards Sarakki, J.P.Nagar on Iliyaz Nagar main
road and when he was taking turn towards Sarakki on ring road, in front of Bharath Petrol Bunk, at that time, the driver of the Tata Sumo came from behind with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant, because of which, the claimant fell down and sustained anterior cruciate ligament tear of left leg, lateral meniscus tear of left knee and immediately, he was taken to the hospital where he spent huge amount towards the treatment. According to the claimant, he was working as a carpenter and earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month.
held that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and they are liable to pay the compensation. But, looking at the manner of accident and the spot sketch, the Court below had come to the conclusion that there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and apportioned the same at 25% on the claimant and 75% on
the driver of the offending vehicle. Under the head of pain and suffering, the Court below granted compensation of an amount of Rs.40,000/-, an amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head of attendant charges, extra nutritious food and conveyance charges. Towards medical bills an amount of Rs.46,735/- was granted and under the head of loss of income during the laid up period the Court below had taken the income of the claimant at Rs.7,000/- per month and for 4 months granted an amount of Rs.28,000/-. Under the head of loss of future income due to permanent disability, the evidence of the doctor is that the claimant had sustained 15% permanent disability. The Court below considered the disability at 12% and granted compensation of an amount of Rs.1,10,880/- and towards loss of amenities an amount of Rs.15,000/- was granted. Altogether, compensation of an amount of Rs.2,45,615/was granted by the Tribunal. Aggrieved thereby, the claimant is before this Court.
submits that without adducing any evidence by the respondents and without there being any evidence, the Court below had come to the conclusion that there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. It is submitted that when the respondents are claiming that there is contributory negligence, they ought to have adduced the evidence. Learned counsel submits that no such evidence is adduced by the respondents and the Court below went wrong in apportioning the contributory negligence at 25% on the claimant. He further submits
that the Court below having observed that there is a fracture had granted an amount of Rs.40,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. It is submitted that the claimant being a carpenter, the disability would have an impact on his future earning and the Court below ought to have taken 15% disability as deposed by the doctor. He submits that the Court below has not given any explanation as to why it was not considering 15%, but was considering 12% as disability. Learned counsel further
NC: 2023:KHC:38257 MFA No. 715 of 2017
submits that under the head of attendant charges, extra nutritious food and conveyance charges, the Court below had granted an amount of Rs.5,000/- which is on the lower side and for the loss of amenities an amount of Rs.15,000/- was granted which is also not adequate. It is submitted that the Tribunal without appreciating the evidence on record had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.2,45,615/- and also held that there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant which is apportioned at 25%.
respondent submits that the Court below rightly held that there is contributory negligence looking at the manner in which the accident had taken place. Particularly, when the offending vehicle was moving on the left side of the road and when the claimant was joining the main road from the ring road, the driver of the offending vehicle without observing the vehicle had dashed to the claimant's vehicle which clearly shows that there is contributory negligence
NC: 2023:KHC:38257 MFA No. 715 of 2017
on the part of the claimant and the Court below had rightly
held that there is contributory negligence which is apportioned at 25% on the claimant. He submits that under the head of pain and suffering the Court below had granted an amount of Rs.40,000/- which is reasonable amount. Further, it is submitted that there is no evidence on record to show what is the income of the claimant and
the Court below had rightly taken the income at Rs.7,000/- and granted compensation. He submits that the compensation that was granted by the Tribunal was reasonable and no grounds are made out for enhancement of the compensation.
the driver of the Tata Sumo came from Kadhirenahalli towards Sarakki and dashed against his motor cycle, because of which, he sustained injuries. In this case, the FIR was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. It is the admission of PW.1 that when the accident took place, he was coming from cross road towards ring road and the offending vehicle was proceeding on the left side of the ring road. It was admitted that the spot of accident is a junction and ring road is attached to the said junction and he has also admitted the correctness of the spot sketch marked as Ex.P.14. The Court below considering the evidence and the spot sketch had come to the conclusion that as the offending vehicle was proceeding on the left side of the ring road and when he was joining the main road from the ring road, he ought to have taken care and it clearly shows that there is contributory negligence on his part and apportioned the same at 25%. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal and the
NC: 2023:KHC:38257 MFA No. 715 of 2017
Tribunal had rightly come to the conclusion that there is contributory negligence.
compensation, the claimant had sustained ACL tear, lateral meniscus tear left knee and he underwent surgery for the said fractures. The Court below considering that he had sustained one fracture had granted an amount of Rs.40,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. The claimant was working as a carpenter and as per the doctor's evidence, there is disability of 15% and the claimant might have undergone lot of pain and suffering. Granting an amount of Rs.40,000/- under the head of pain
and suffering is on the lower side. This Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.80,000/- under the head of pain and suffering .
NC: 2023:KHC:38257 MFA No. 715 of 2017
sustained by him and the time it takes this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards transport, conveyance charges and extra nourishment i.e., Rs.5,000/- on each head. Then coming to the medical bills, the Court below had rightly granted an amount of Rs.46,735/- basing on the evidence and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the same.
NC: 2023:KHC:38257 MFA No. 715 of 2017
NC: 2023:KHC:38257 MFA No. 715 of 2017
amount of Rs.15,000/- which is a reasonable amount and no interference is called for.
compensation under the following heads:
| Heads | C | ompensation Awarded |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Pain and Sufferings | : | Rs. | 80,000/- |
| 2. | Conveyance, attendant charges, Extra nourishment |
: | Rs. | 15,000/- |
| 3. | Medical bills | : | Rs. | 46,735/- |
| 4. | Loss of income during the laid up period |
: | Rs. | 36,000/- |
1 (2014) 11 SCC 178
| 5. | Loss of earning due to disability |
: | Rs. | 1,78,200/- |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6. | Loss of amenities | : | Rs. | 15,000/- |
| 7. | Legal Expenses | : | Rs. | 10,000/- |
| TOTAL | : | Rs. | 3,80,935/- |
i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
ii) The respondent - insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is
NC: 2023:KHC:38257 MFA No. 715 of 2017
entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/JUDGE
MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 CT: BHK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the finding of contributory negligence apportioned at 25% by the Tribunal.
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss of earning.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V. MEKALA vs. M. MALATHI AND ANOTHERRelied on¶66
V. MEKALA vs. M. MALATHI AND ANOTHER
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI. ANAND KUMAR M
THE DIRECTOR, DSERT
THE DIRECTOR, KGID
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
