Partly allowed

Mohammed Rafiq S/O Allabakash v. E Mounesha S/O Eswarappa

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2024MFA/102614/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the Motor Vehicles appeal partly, enhancing total compensation to Rs. 4,25,200 from Rs. 3,75,200. Ruled that while notional income need not be raised above State Legal Services Authority norms, pain/agony and loss of amenities compensation were increased.

What did the court decide?

Modified the Tribunal award; total compensation enhanced to Rs. 4,25,200 payable by respondent insurer with 9% p.a. interest.

Mohammed Rafiq S/O Allabakash Vs E Mounesha S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8081-DB MFA No.102614 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102614 OF 2020 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MOHAMMED RAFIQ S/O. ALLABAKASH, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: WELDER, R/O: KAWADI STREET, KABRASTHAN ROAD, COWL BAZAR, BALLARI.

¶10

APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI B.S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

E. MOUNESHA S/O. ESWARAPPA,

¶14

AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF THE TEMPO BEARING REG.NO.KA-34/N-2157, R/O: WARD NO.3, BASAVAPURA, GENIKIHAL, BALLARI TALUK & DISTRICT.

¶15

PARASAPPA A. S/O. HULUGAYYAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OWNER OF THE TEMPO BEARING REG.NO.KA-34/N-2157, R/O: MUSTIGATTA ROAD,

¶16

NEAR NEELAKANTESHWARA TEMPLE,

¶17

KURUGODU POST, BALLARI DISTRICT.

¶18

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶19

THE BRANCH MANAGER, CHOLA M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DLUBLE ROAD, OPP. COSMOPOLITAN, CLUB BALLARI.

¶20

RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NAGARAJ C.KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)

¶21

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF M.V. ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.09.2017 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.2836/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IX-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND AMACT, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8081-DB MFA No.102614 of 2020

¶24

THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of both sides the appeal is taken up for disposal.

¶27

The appellant/claimant is in appeal dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the III MACT, Ballari (for short ‘Tribunal’) dated 04.11.2019 in M.V.C. No. 748/2016. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶28

Injured-claimant filed claim petition u/S 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation for accidental injuries suffered in motor vehicle accident that took place on 17.04.2016 involving motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-34-EF-0878 and Trax bearing Reg. No. KA-34-N-2157. It is submitted that claimant/ appellant was aged 32 years as on the date of accident, doing welding work and earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month.

¶29

On appearance the respondent no.3-insurance company filed its statement of objections denying claim petition averments but admitted issuance of policy to the offending vehicle. Further it contended that driver of the offending

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8081-DB MFA No.102614 of 2020

¶31

vehicle was not holding valid and effective licence as on the date of accident and also contended that the offending vehicle was not having valid permit to ply more particularly on the route where the accident occurred. Hence, it stated that there is violation of the terms and conditions of the police and it is not liable to pay compensation.

¶32

Claimant examined himself as PW1 apart from examining PW2-Dr.Syed Sadath Hussain in support of his case. Claimant marked Exs.P.1 to P.11 in support of his case. No evidence was let in on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal on scrutiny of the material on record, awarded a compensation of Rs.3,75,200/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. While awarding above compensation, Tribunal assessed notional income at Rs.9,000/- per month, whole body disability at 15% and adopted multiplier ‘16’.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He submits that the claimant was working as a Welder and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The Tribunal without going into the evidence of PW1 has erroneously assessed income of the

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8081-DB MFA No.102614 of 2020

¶35

claimant at Rs.9,000/- per month and prays for enhancing the notional income.

¶36

Learned counsel would further submit that the claimant was inpatient for five days and suffered fracture of tibia and fibula. In that circumstance, he submits that the compensation awarded on other heads are on the lower side and prays for enhancing the same.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is a just compensation which needs no interference. He further submitted that, for establishing the income of injured, no material is made available. Hence, under such circumstances the notional income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.9,000/- per month is more than the notional income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Thus he prays for dismissing the appeal.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the trial court records, the following point would arise for our consideration.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8081-DB MFA No.102614 of 2020

¶41

Whether the claimant/appellant would be entitled for enhancement of compensation?

¶42

The answer to the above point would be ‘partly in the affirmative’ for the following reasons.

¶43

REASONS

¶44

The accident that had taken place on 17.04.2016 involving the motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-34-EF-0878 and trax bearing Reg. No. KA-34-N-2157 and the resultant injury sustained by the appellant, is not in dispute. The appellant is before this Court praying for enhancement of compensation. It is an admitted fact that the respondent-insurance company has not filed any appeal and it has satisfied the award.

¶45

The appellant-claimant stated that the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.9,000/- per month is on the lower side. The appellant has not placed on record any material to establish his avocation or income. In the absence of material to assess or establish the income, it is for the Tribunal to assess notional income. The accident is of the year 2016 and the notional income for the said year would be Rs.8,750/- per month in terms of the chart prepared by the Karnataka State

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8081-DB MFA No.102614 of 2020

¶48

Legal Services Authority. Whereas the Tribunal has assessed the same at Rs.9,000/- per month which is more than the notional income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the same.

¶49

The claimant has suffered fracture of tibia and fibula. The Doctor has deposed that the claimant suffered 40% disability to a particular limb. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 15% taking note of the disability suffered by the appellant-claimant to a particular limb at 40%. This finding of the Tribunal also needs no interference.

¶50

The claimant was an inpatient for four days. Taking note of the injuries sustained we are of the view that the compensation towards ‘pain and agony’ and ‘loss of amenities’ is on the lower side. Hence, the same is enhanced from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- to Rs.50,000/respectively. Thus the claimant is entitled for compensation as under:

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8081-DB MFA No.102614 of 2020

¶53

1.	Pain and agony	50,000.00
2.	Medical expenses, attendant, food, diet, nourishment, conveyance, etc.	29,000.00
3.	Future medical expenses	10,000.00
4.	Loss of earnings during treatment period and loss of earning on account of permanent disablement	2,86,200.00
5.	Loss of amenities	50,000.00
	Total	4,25,200.00

¶54

Thus, the claimant/injured is entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,25,200/- as against Rs.3,75,200/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶55

In the result, we pass the following order.

¶56

ORDER

¶57

a) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶58

b) The impugned judgment and awarded passed by the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,25,200/- as against Rs.3,75,200/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶59

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8081-DB MFA No.102614 of 2020

¶61

c) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment;

¶62

d) Respondent-insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶63

e) On such deposit, the said amount shall be apportioned in favour of the claimant as per the award of the Tribunal.

¶64

f) Registry to transmit the records to the tribunal forthwith.

¶65

g) Draw modified award accordingly.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

BVV

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Mohammed Rafiq S/O Allabakash v. E Mounesha S/O Eswarappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Rafiq S/O Allabakash v. E Mounesha S/O Eswarappa

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

United Social Welfare Association Vs Smt. Pushpalatha B S

Sri Daneshwari Seva Samsthe Belagavi Vs Smt. Pushpalata B S

The Divisional Manager Vs Sunil S/O.Kadagouda Patil

Smt. Kurubara Varalakshmi Alias G Varalakshmi W/O Lae Sri Kuruba Kuberappa Alias G Kuberappa Vs Sri B B Govinda Gouda S/O Basavaraju

Sri Venkatesh S/O Chennappa Shet Vs the Managing Director

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Yamanappa Hanamanth Galag