Partly allowed

Mahesh D v. Santosh

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2024MFA/1131/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous first appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to a motorbike rider injured in a road accident. The Court modified the Tribunal's award, increasing the amount from Rs.69,000 to Rs.1,87,000 based on revised notional income, disability percentage, and specific heads of compensation.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs.1,87,000 to be paid by the respondent-insurance company with interest at 6% p.a. within four weeks.

Mahesh D Vs Santosh — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10651 MFA No. 1131 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1131 OF 2022 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MAHESH D, S/O DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.990, ASHOKA ROAD, 5TH WEST CROSS, LASHKAR MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 001.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SANTOSH, S/O VENKATEGOWDA, AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT VISWESHWARAIAH EXTENSION, OPP. TIRUMALA CHOULTRY ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶13

ICICI LOMBARD GEN. CO. LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, 1ST FLOOR, MYTHRI ARCADE, NEW KANTHARAJA URS ROAD, NEAR SARASWATHI LAYOUT, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU - 570 009.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 15.02.2022, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10651 MFA No. 1131 of 2022

¶17

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.09.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1163/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AS PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT, MYSURU, C/C OF ADDITIONAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 16.09.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysuru (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.1163/2015. This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶21

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

¶22

3. Brief facts of the case are as under;

¶23

That on 22.07.2015 at about 2.30 p.m., the claimant

¶24

was traveling on motor cycle bearing registration No.KA55-L-7216 on Rane Madras Factory road, Hebbal ring road

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10651 MFA No. 1131 of 2022

¶26

junction. At that time, a Maruthi Omni car bearing registration No.KA-13-N-7147 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant. Due to the said impact, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to ESI hospital, Mysuru, wherein first aid treatment was given. Thereafter, to K.R.Hospital, Mysuru, wherein, he took treatment as an inpatient.

¶27

3.1 It is stated that the claimant was hale and healthy prior to the occurrence of accident. He was working as a Security Guard and earning an income of Rs.8,000/- per month. Due to the occurrence of accident and injuries suffered, the claimant is unable to do his work normally as he was doing prior to the occurrence of accident. Hence, the claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

¶28

3.2 On service of notice, respondent No.1 did not appear before the tribunal and he was placed ex parte . Respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared before the

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10651 MFA No. 1131 of 2022

¶30

tribunal and filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition including age, avocation, income and negligence attributed against the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶31

3.3 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration.

¶32

3.4 In order to substantiate the issues and to

¶33

establish the case, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and the Doctor as PW.2 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P15. On the other hand, respondents did not adduce their evidence either oral or documentary.

¶34

3.5 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.69,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation and also held respondent Nos.1 and 2 to be jointly and severally liable to

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10651 MFA No. 1131 of 2022

¶36

pay the compensation to the claimant and respondent No.2 being the insurer was directed to deposit the compensation within 30 days from the date of the award.

¶37

3.6 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶38

It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for appellant-claimant that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding meager compensation, which calls for interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶39

Per contra , learned counsel for respondentInsurance Company contends that the tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for interference. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the appeal.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel for appellantclaimant and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10651 MFA No. 1131 of 2022

¶42

Company, perused the impugned judgment and award, it is seen that the claimant has produced the documents as

¶43

Exs.P1 to P15, out of which, Exs.P1 to P7 are the Police records, which clearly depict the filing of FIR and laying of charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle and same has not been challenged or controverted. Therefore, the tribunal rightly attributed the negligence against the driver of the offending vehicle. Exs.P98 to P15 are the medical records, which clearly depict the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident.

¶44

Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation and income, it is stated that age of the claimant was 40 years as on the date of occurrence of accident. The tribunal taken the income of Rs.6,000/- per month, in view of there being no proof of income. However, the notional income chart of the Legal Services Authority prescribes the income of Rs.9,000/- for the accident year 2015. Accordingly, income is taken as Rs.9,000/-. The tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier at ‘15', which does not

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:10651 MFA No. 1131 of 2022

¶46

call for interference. PW.2-Doctor has opined the disability to the extent of 5% to the left upper limb. However, he has not stated the functional disability to the whole body, whereas the tribunal has assessed the functional disability at 2%. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that 5% to be taken as the whole body disability. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.81,000/- (Rs.9,000/- x 12 x 15 x 5%) towards loss of future income as against Rs.22,000/- awarded by the tribunal.

¶47

The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- under this head.

¶48

The tribunal awarded Rs.12,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. In view of enhancement of the income by this Court to Rs.9,000/- per month, the claimant would require atleast three months period to recuperate and to get back to his normal day to day activities. Therefore, claimant would be entitled to

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:10651 MFA No. 1131 of 2022

¶50

Rs.27,000/- (Rs.9,000/- x 3) under the head loss of

¶51

income during laid up period.

¶52

The tribunal awarded Rs.11,000/- towards attendant charges, extra diet, nourishment and conveyance. However, the claimant was inpatient for 25 days. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- under this head.

¶53

The tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- under this head.

¶54

The tribunal awarded Rs.4,000/- towards medical expenses, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶55

In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,87,000/- as

¶56

against Rs.69,000/- as mentioned in the table below:

¶57

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Pain, shock and suffering	25,000-00
Loss of income during laid up period	27,000-00
Attendant charges, extra diet,	25,000-00

¶58

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:10651 MFA No. 1131 of 2022

¶59

nourishment and conveyance
Loss of amenities	25,000-00
Medical expenses	4,000-00
Loss of future income	81,000-00
TOTAL	1,87,000-00

¶60

14. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part ;

¶63

ii) The judgment and award dated 16.09.2021 passed in MVC.No.1163/2015 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mysuru, is modified;

¶64

iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,87,000/- as against Rs.69,000/- awarded by the tribunal;

¶65

iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid with interest @ 6% p.a. by the respondent-Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

¶66

10 -

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:10651 MFA No. 1131 of 2022

¶68

v) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant-claimant upon proper verification;

¶69

vi) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact.

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

CPN CT: BHK

Mahesh D v. Santosh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh D v. Santosh

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

The Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Smt Shanthamma @ Shantha

Mr Siddappa Vs Mr Shaffi Hussain

Sri.N.S. Satish Babu Vs M/S Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solution Pvt. Ltd.

Deepak K.G. Vs Sugu G @ Sukumaran

Rathnamma @ Nagarathnamma @ Nagarathna Vs S Raghu

Santhosha @ Santosha Nagarajappa Vs Govardhan Reddy M