Partly allowed

Rangaswamy v. Naganna @ Nagaraja

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2023MFA/7810/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a miscellaneous first appeal by an accident victim against the Traffic Tribunal's award. The Court noted the Tribunal failed to award compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and other heads beyond medical expenses. Consequently, the Court enhanced the total compensation from Rs. 1,33,500 to Rs. 2,38,463.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation to Rs. 2,38,463/-; order to be paid by the vehicle owner within eight weeks; enhanced amount carries 6% per annum interest.

Rangaswamy Vs Naganna @ Nagaraja — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 7810 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7810 OF 2014 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RANGASWAMY S/O.RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS AGRICULTURIST KASAVANAHALLY HIRIYUR TALUK R/AT C.K.PURA KELAGOTE CHITRADURGA - 577 501

¶8

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

NAGANNA @ NAGARAJA S/O.LATE THIMMANNA DRIVER OF TATA ACE BEARING REG.NO.KA-44/3186 R/AT KASAVANAHALLY HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577501

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

BABU S/O.PYREJAN OWNER OF TATA ACE BEARING REG.NO.KA-44/3186 R/AT BANNINAGARA ROAD SOPPINAHATTY, SIRA TOWN TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 137

…RESPONDENTS

(R1 & R2 ARE SERVED)

MFA No. 7810 of 2014

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:09.07.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.632/2013 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-V, CHITRADURGA.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.632/2013 dated 09.07.2014 by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-V, Chitradurga, (for short ‘the Tribunal’). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation.

¶22

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

¶23

Brief facts of the case is as under:

¶24

On 08.11.2012 at 8.30 a.m., when the claimant was traveling with areca nut bags in TATA Ace bearing registration No.KA-44/3186 from Kasavanahally to Bheemasamudra market, the driver of the said Tata Ace vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner violating the traffic rules and regulations, due to which, the vehicle overturned due to burst

¶25

¶26

MFA No. 7810 of 2014

¶27

of its tyre. Due to the said accident, the claimant fell down and sustained injuries all over his body and he was immediately shifted to the District Hospital, Chitradurga, where he took treatment and later shifted to S.S.Hospital, Davanagere for better treatment.

¶28

3.1 It is stated that the claimant was inpatient for 48 days and thereafter, he took treatment as an out patient for more than six months by incurring huge medical expenses of Rs.3,00,000/-. Due to the impact of the accident and the injuries suffered, the claimant has suffered physical disability and it has dented his life both financially and emotionally and has lost his future earning capacity. It is claimed by the claimant that he was doing agricultural work and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month and was maintaining his family.

¶29

3.2 On service of notice, respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle failed to appear and was placed ex parte whereas respondent No.2 – driver of the offending vehicle though appeared, did not contest the matter.

¶30

3.3 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration. In order to substantiate the

¶31

¶32

MFA No. 7810 of 2014

¶33

issues and to establish the case, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P.87, whereas the respondents neither adduced any evidence nor got marked any documents.

¶34

3.4 On the basis of material evidence both oral and documentary, the tribunal awarded the total compensation of `1,33,500/-. Out of which, the medical expenses on the actual bills itself was Rs.1,13,463/-, to which, the tribunal awarded a global compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the claimant and directed respondent No.1-onwer of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation.

¶35

3.5 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation amount

¶36

awarded, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶37

The points that would arise for consideration before this Court are:

¶38

“i) Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? ii) What order ?”

¶39

¶40

MFA No. 7810 of 2014

¶41

The occurrence of accident, involvement of vehicle and the injuries sustained by the claimant are not seriously disputed, as no statement of objections are filed by the respondents, so also, they did not contest the claim. The same is proved by production of Exs.P1 to P87 and admittedly, FIR and chargesheet are filed against the driver of the offending vehicle which is not disputed and no challenge is made to the said filing of chargehseet or criminal case registered against the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶42

Despite service of notice, respondents-owner of the offending vehicle as well as the driver have remained absent and they have not contested the matter. Admittedly, there is no insurance policy. Hence, the Insurer is not made as a party. The tribunal ought to have decided the claim petition on the basis of material placed before the Court, but has turned the blind eye to Exs.P1 to P87 placed before it with regard to injuries sustained and medical expenses meted out and it has not awarded any compensation towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of income during laid up period, food, nourishment and attendant charges undergone by the claimant. The tribunal has merely awarded Rs.20,000/- as global

¶43

¶44

MFA No. 7810 of 2014

¶45

compensation and has awarded medical expenses on actual amount Rs.1,13,463/- and the said amount ofcourse requires to be awarded and it is rightly awarded by the tribunal, which does not call for interference.

¶46

The tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation under other heads to the injuries sustained by the claimant. Admittedly, the wound certificate is produced, which exhibits the injuries sustained by the claimant.

¶47

In view of the above, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation under different heads:

¶48

(a) The claimant is entitled to Rs.50,000/- towards Pain and suffering.

¶49

(b) Towards loss of amenities, Rs.30,000/- is awarded to the claimant.

¶50

(c) As the accident occurred in the year 2012, the notional income of the claimant as prescribed in the Legal Services Authority chart is taken as Rs.7,000/- p.m. and three months is taken as laid up period. Hence, I deem it appropriate

¶51

¶52

MFA No. 7810 of 2014

¶53

to award a sum of Rs.21,000/- (Rs.7,000/- x 3) under the

¶54

head loss of income during laid up period.

¶55

(d) The claimant was inpatient for a period of 48 days. Hence, towards food, nourishment and attendant charges, Rs.24,000/- is awarded at Rs.500/- per day for 48 days.

¶56

(e) In view of the above discussions, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,38,463/- as against

¶57

1,33,500/- as per the table mentioned hereinbelow:

¶58

Heads	Amount awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and Suffering	50,000-00
Medical expenses	1,13,463-00
Loss of amenities	30,000-00
Loss of income during laid up period	21,000-00
Food, nourishment and attendant charges	24,000-00
TOTAL	2,38,463=00

¶59

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part ;

¶62

ii) The judgment and award dated 09.07.2014 passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-V, Chitradurga in MVC No.632/2013, is modified;

¶63

¶64

MFA No. 7810 of 2014

¶65

iii) The claimant is entitled for total compensation of 2,38,463/- as against 1,33,500/- awarded by the tribunal;

¶66

iv) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact and not disturbed;

¶67

v) The entire compensation amount shall be released in favour of the claimant;

¶68

vi) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum.

¶69

vii) The above said compensation shall be paid by the respondent-owner of the offending vehicle, within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶70

¶71

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

Rangaswamy v. Naganna @ Nagaraja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangaswamy v. Naganna @ Nagaraja

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

Dr Kanduri Ramanujacharyulu Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Mohammed Sanaulla Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Sindhu Rajasekhar Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Pavankumar M Vs State of Karnataka

Ranganatha Reddy Vs Shamanna

Smt. Uma @ Soumya Vs Prathap M