Partly allowed

Ayub Khan v. Sri Katriyesan

Karnataka HC11 Oct 2023MFA/935/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed an appeal filed by the claimant against an award of Rs. 55,000/- under the Motor Vehicles Act. The court enhanced the compensation for bodily injuries and awarded separate amounts for vehicle damage and legal expenses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 55,000/- to Rs. 72,000/-, carrying interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition.

Ayub Khan Vs Sri Katriyesan — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:37315 MFA No. 935 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 935 OF 2012

¶7

(MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

AYUB KHAN S/O LATE AZEEM KHAN, AGE: ABOUT 44 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF NEW PERFECT, AUTO WORKS, HARIHAR ROAD, DAVANAGERE

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. ALI MOHAMMED., ADVOCATE FOR ; SRI. R. KOTHWAL., ADVOCATE)

¶12

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

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI KATRIYESAN S/O PERIYASWAMY AGE: ABOUT 45 YEARS DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.TN-28-M-4354, R/O PERIYAKARASA PALYAM, VILLAGE, OLAPALAM POST,VELLUR TALUK, NAMKAL DISTRICT TAMIL NADU STATE

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:37315 MFA No. 935 of 2012

¶16

SRI SHIROMATHI P.SIVAKAMI MAJOR, W/O. P.PARAMASIVAM AGE: MAJOR OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REGISTRATIONNO.TN-28-M-4354, R/A NO.3/17,EAST PERUMAM PALAYAM, KEELSATHAMBUR POST, NAMAKKAL TALUK, TAMILNADU STATE

¶17

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, M.M.K. COMPLEX, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD,P.J.EXTENSION DAVANAGERE-577 002,

¶18

POLICYISSUING OFFICE

¶19

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAOFFICE,NO.2, NAMAKKAL-637 001, TAMIL NADU

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY R1 - NOTICE SERVED V/O DT: 18.08.2015; NOTICE TO R2- IS DISMISSED; SMT. LAKSHMI NARASAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR; SRI. A.M. VENKATESH FOR R3.,ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED04.11.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.577/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT-V, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC:37315 MFA No. 935 of 2012

¶25

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

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This is an appeal filed by the claimant, aggrieved by

¶28

the award passed in MVC.No.577/2009 dated: 04.11.2010 on the file I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT-V, Davanagere.

¶29

The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for the bodily injuries sustained by the claimant and damages to the vehicle. The case of the claimant is that on 25.03.2009 at about 4.30 p.m. near Danapura bridge on NH-13 when the claimant was proceeding towards Davanagere along with his friends and family members. At that time the respondent No.1 has driven his lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the claimant vehicle and in the said accident, claimant sustained injuries and also his car was completely damaged. He was earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month. The court below had

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:37315 MFA No. 935 of 2012

¶31

granted an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards the simple injury sustained by him and towards damages caused to the vehicle an amount of Rs.50,000/- was granted, towards cost of repairs no amounts were granted. Towards surveyor fee another amount of Rs.2,000/- was granted. Altogether an amount of Rs.55,000/- was granted as compensation by the Tribunal.

¶32

3. Learned counsel fro the claimant submits that

¶33

when he had spent huge amounts for the repairs of the said vehicle, court had not considered the same. He submits that on his behalf he has marked Ex.P-8 Survey report, Ex.P-9 the bills and Ex.P-10 the estimate. It is submitted that both for the damage of the vehicle and to the bodily injuries, amount that were granted by the Tribunal were on the lower side and it is not a just and reasonable compensation.

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:37315 MFA No. 935 of 2012

¶35

Learned counsel for the insurance company

¶36

submits that except stating that claimant is using the vehicle and earning an amount of Rs.15,000/-, he has not adduced any evidence, even for the injuries sustained by the claimant, no medical records were produced and the court below had rightly granted the compensation. When it comes to head of cost of repairs, the court below has observed that no evidence is forthcoming whether replacement of the said spare parts was necessary. No one was examined, the person who has issued Ex.P-10 estimate was not examined and the court below had rightly granted the compensation.

¶37

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. First coming to the injuries, according to the claimant, he had sustained simple injury, in respect of the same, except the wound certificate, nothing else has been placed before the Court. As per the wound certificate the injury is a simple in

¶38

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:37315 MFA No. 935 of 2012

¶39

nature. Towards pain and suffering , the court below had granted an amount of Rs.3,000/- and this court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.10,000/-. Then coming to the damages to vehicle and for the repairs , the court below had rightly granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- and rightly refused to grant the compensation for the costs of repairs, as though he has produced several bills, and has not examined anyone in support of the same whether the said repairs are necessary or not, no evidence was placed on record and the court below had rightly granted the compensation of an amount of Rs.50,000/and Rs.2,000/- towards Surveyor Fees . This court finds no reasons to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal.

¶40

In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V. MEKALA -vs- M. MALATHI AND ANOTHER¹ , the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses .

¶41

1 (2014) 11 SCC 178

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:37315 MFA No. 935 of 2012

¶44

Altogether the claimant is entitled for an amount Rs.72,000/-. Accordingly the appeal is Allowed-in-part by enhancing the compensation from Rs.55,000/- to

¶45

Rs.72,000/-.

¶46

The claimant is entitled for compensation under

¶47

the following heads:

¶48

Sl. No.	Description of Items	Com A	pensation warded
1.	Damages caused to the vehicle	Rs.	50,000/-
2.	Bodily Injuries	Rs.	10,000/-
3.	Surveyor Fee	Rs.	2,000/-
4.	Legal Expenses	Rs.	10,000/-
	Total	Rs.	72,000/-

¶49

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is

¶50

Allowed-in-part by enhancing the compensation amount from an amount of Rs.55,000/- to Rs.72,000/-.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2023:KHC:37315 MFA No. 935 of 2012

¶53

(a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realization.

¶54

(b) Respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the said enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the tribunal within a period of 8 (Eight) weeks.

¶55

(c) 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.

¶56

(d) No Costs.

¶57

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶58

stand closed.

¶59

SD/JUDGE

¶60

TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Ayub Khan v. Sri Katriyesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayub Khan v. Sri Katriyesan

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 L Devaram Vs Sri Shivaram

Thimmareddy S/O Channareddy Vs Manjunath S/O Narayana Gowda

Smt Laxmi Wife of Seena Vs Haneef Son of Abbas Byari

Mahadevaiah Vs H M Devaraju

Sri Arun Kumar Shetty Vs Sri Syed Zainulla Bussin Daniyal

Branch Manager Vs Ratnamma W/O Kotrappa