Partly allowed

Lalsab Bapusab Kuchbal v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2024MFA/102090/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this special first appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a bench enhanced the compensation awarded to a claimant injured in a road traffic accident. The Court recalculated loss of future earning based on a 15% whole body disability and increased compensation for pain and sufferings from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 60,000.

What did the court decide?

Total enhanced compensation directed to be paid by the Insurance Company: Rs. 4,10,050/-, payable with interest at 6% p.a.

Lalsab Bapusab Kuchbal Vs the Managing Director — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14976-DB MFA No. 102090 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102090 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

LALSAB BAPUSAB KUCHBAL AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER (NOW NIL), R/O: HOUSE NO.12, PDA COLONY, CORLIM IILHAS TISWADI, GOA, PRESENTLY R/O: 195, SYNDICATE BANK COLONY, ANGOL, BELAGAVI-590006.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. YASH R. NADAKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, VRL, LOGISTICS LTD., REGISTERED AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, NH-4, BENGALURU ROAD, VARUR, HUBBALI-581207.

¶13

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

¶14

Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2024.10.24 10:32:29 +0530

¶15

HAVING OITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT 3933/B2, MOODALAGI BUILDING, 2^ND FLOOR, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. HANUMANTH REDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. M.K.SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECITON 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2113/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE X- ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIM TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14976-DB MFA No. 102090 of 2017

¶21

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)

¶24

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles

¶25

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant challenging the judgment dated 31.12.2016 passed by the X Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Member Addl. MACT, Belagavi in MVC No.2113/2015.

¶26

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 26.04.2015 when the claimant was proceeding as a driver in his Ashok Leyland Goods Truck bearing registration No.GA-02/T-9241 from Hubballi to Goa at about 06:30 hours. When he reached near Belagavi Panaji (NH4A) road, at that time, the driver of the Ashok Leyland truck bearing registration No.KA-25/B-8495 came from Goa to Ramnagar driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the claimant’s goods truck

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14976-DB MFA No. 102090 of 2017

¶28

from opposite direction and caused the accident. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. After recovering from the injuries, the claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before the MACT, Belagavi.

¶29

Upon service of notice, the respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No.1, despite service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.

¶30

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and award has partly allowed the claim petition and held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,36,450/along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14976-DB MFA No. 102090 of 2017

¶32

along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶33

The learned counsel for the claimant has contended

¶34

that due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries. He has examined the Doctor S.R.Angadi as P.W.2. In his evidence, he has deposed that the claimant has suffered 25% in the left shoulder joint due to fracture left clavicle bone and 15% in the right shoulder joint due to fracture 5^th , 6^th and 7^th ribs in the right side of the chest and 10% due to fracture of left nasal bone. The Tribunal has assessed whole body disability as 13% which is on lower side.

¶35

Secondly he has contended that due to that accident,

¶36

claimant has suffered grievous injuries and was in-patient for a period of 9 days. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment. He has to suffer the disability and unhappiness throughout his life. Considering the injury suffered by the claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14976-DB MFA No. 102090 of 2017

¶38

pain and sufferings, loss of amenities and other incidental expenses is on lower side. Hence, he sought for enhancement of the compensation. With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to allow the appeal.

¶39

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the Tribunal after considering the evidence of Doctor and medical records has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 13%. It is further contended that considering the evidence of the Doctor PW2 and considering the certified copy of wound certificate at Ex.P5 and discharge summary at Ex.P11, the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable compensation for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities and other incidental expenses and the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, with the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14976-DB MFA No. 102090 of 2017

¶41

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶42

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶43

It is not in dispute that the claimant has suffering an

¶44

injury in a road traffic accident that occurred on 26.04.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck bearing registration No.KA-25/B-8495, due to that accident the claimant has suffered fracture of left clavicle bone and fracture of left nasal bone. The claimant has examined the Doctor as PW2. In his evidence, he has deposed that the claimant has suffered total permanent physical disability to the extent of 25% in the left shoulder joint due to fracture left clavicle bone and 15% in the right shoulder joint due to fracture 5^th , 6^th and 7^th ribs in the right side of the chest and 10% due to fracture of left nasal bone. Considering the evidence of Doctor PW2, medical records, we are of the opinion that whole body disability has to be assessed at 15%. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.10,000/- per month. The multiplier applicable to that

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14976-DB MFA No. 102090 of 2017

¶46

age group is 14. Accordingly, loss of future earning due to disability has been reassessed as follows:

¶47

Rs.10,000/- X 12 X 14 X 15 = Rs.2,52,000/-

¶48

Due to that accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries. He was in-patient for a period of 9 days. He has suffered lot of pain and he has to suffer the disability and unhappiness throughout his life. Considering the evidence of Doctor and injury suffered by the claimant, we are inclined to enhance the compensation for pain and sufferings from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.60,000/- and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are just and reasonable.

¶49

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:

¶50

Compensation under different	As awarded by the Tribunal	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Heads	(Rs.)
Towards loss of future	Rs.2,18,400/-	Rs.2,52,000/-

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14976-DB MFA No. 102090 of 2017

¶52

income
Towards pain and sufferings	Rs.20,000/-	Rs.60,000/-
Towards medical expenses	Rs.58,050/-	Rs.58,050/-
Towards loss of	Rs.20,000/-	Rs.20,000/-
income during laid up period
Towards food, nutrition and	Rs.20,000/-	Rs.20,000/-
attendant charges
Total	3,36,450/-	Rs.4,10,050/-

¶53

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶56

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,10,050/-.

¶57

d) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of

¶58

¶59

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14976-DB MFA No. 102090 of 2017

¶60

six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this

¶61

judgment.

¶62

Sd/(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶63

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶64

RSH / Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Lalsab Bapusab Kuchbal v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalsab Bapusab Kuchbal v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri K. E.T. Laxminarayan S/O Thimmappa Vs Dr. Ishwar S/O Allappa Ullagaddi

The Scheduled Caste / Schedule Tribe Vs Shri. Divya Prabhu Grj

Smt. Shaila S Shetty Vs Halashantagouda

The Divisional Controller, Vs Smt. Asmita W/O. Shivaji Thorat

Kumari. Amruta D/O Late Shivaji Thorat Vs the Divisional Controller

Kamalakshi W/O Sridhar Gunaga Vs Sri Rajendra Kumar Kataria