Partly allowed

The Manager v. Gururaj Baburay Pai

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2024MFA/100017/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges the MACT award of Rs. 4,25,000 compensation for a road traffic accident. The court found the claimant failed to prove loss of future income despite his profession being a businessman. The appeal was partly allowed, reducing compensation to Rs. 2,74,539.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced from Rs. 4,24,539 to Rs. 2,74,539 with interest at 6% p.a.

The Manager Vs Gururaj Baburay Pai — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:1843 MFA No. 100017 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100017 OF 2016 (MV-I)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

THE MANAGER SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., E-8, EPIP, RIICO, SEETAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-302022, INDIA, NOW REPRESEBTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.5/4, 3^RD FLOOR, S.V.ARCADE BELEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD OFF. BENNURUGHATTA ROAD, IIMB POST, BENGALURU-560076.

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI.S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
SAROJA HANGARAKI
HANGARAKI Date:
2024.02.19
15:51:35
+0530

¶11

GURURAJ BABURAY PAI AGE: ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O: H.NO:31, KANCHIKERI, BELKE POST, BHATKAL TALUK, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

¶12

JAGADISHWAR S/O. MALAPPA BAGOJI AGE: MAJOR, C/O: MRUTYUNJAYA NAGAR, HAVERI PETH, SAVADATTI ROAD, DHARWAD.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI.SURESH S.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED 10.07.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.53/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HONNAVAR, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.4,25,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8%P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:1843 MFA No. 100017 of 2016

¶17

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

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Heard Sri.S.K.Kayakmath and Sri.Suresh Bhat,

¶20

counsels for the parties.

¶21

Insurance company is in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation especially on the head of loss of future income on account of disability which is the subject matter of judgment and award passed in MVC No.53/2014

¶22

dated 10.07.2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Member, Additional MACT, Honnavar.

¶23

Admitted facts are that the claimants suffered injuries on account of road traffic accident involving motorcycle bearing No.KA-47/L-3103 and lorry bearing No.MH-06/AC-4785.

¶24

Charge sheet came to be filed against the lorry driver.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:1843 MFA No. 100017 of 2016

¶26

Insurer of the lorry has been directed to pay adjudged compensation in a sum of Rs. 4,24,539/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

¶27

Sri.S.K.Kayakmath, learned counsel for appellantinsurance company contended that tribunal grossly erred in awarding sum of Rs.1,73,400/- on the head loss of future income on account of disability inasmuch as the claimant is a businessman and he has not suffered any loss on account of the injury.

¶28

He also pointed out that there is no proof of loss of income on account of accidental injuries and therefore, quantum of compensation is to be reassessed by reducing sum of Rs.1,73,400/-.

¶29

Per contra, Sri.Suresh Bhat, counsel for the claimant supported the impugned judgment and contended that on account of the disability sustained by the claimant in his leg, his business operations have not been affected.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:1843 MFA No. 100017 of 2016

¶31

In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this

¶32

court has perused the material on record meticulously.

¶33

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the claimant has established that he has suffered accidental injuries involving aforesaid vehicles on 14.12.2013.

¶34

Admittedly, claimant is a business man. No material evidence is produced to show that he has suffered loss of future income even after the accident. Therefore, award of compensation in a sum of Rs.1,73,400/- on the head of loss of future income is uncalled for and requires interference of this court in reassessing the compensation.

¶35

However, on the head of attendant and other charges, amount awarded is only Rs.20,000/-. Likewise, loss of amenities only Rs.25,000/- is awarded. Taking note of the these aspects of the matter, reducing compensation in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- would meet the ends of justice.

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:1843 MFA No. 100017 of 2016

¶37

13. Accordingly, the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i) Appeal is allowed in part.

¶40

ii) As against compensation in a sum of Rs.4,24,539/- awarded by the tribunal, claimant is entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.2,74,539/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. iii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the tribunal.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

HMB

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

The Manager v. Gururaj Baburay Pai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. Gururaj Baburay Pai

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

Gouramma W/O Irappa Herur Vs Manjunath S/O Basappa Guled

Nagappa @ Nagesh Vs Nazir Ahmed Gousemohiddn Mulla

Shivaleela W/O. Chanabasappa Itagi Vs the Managing Director

Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs Basavva Somappa Badaradinni

Reliance Gen.Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs P. Mustahanbi W/O. Hussainasab

Venkatesh Hanumantappa Waddar @ Bhovi Vs the Divisional Manager