Partly allowed

M K Sanjay v. H Nagesh

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2024MFA/1252/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Minor First Appeal challenges the dismissal of a motor accident claim petition by the Fast Track Court due to alleged two-day delay in filing a police complaint. The High Court held the delay was justified by the victim's father foregoing a settlement promise, allowed the appeal in part, set aside the impugned award, and granted total compensation of Rs. 1,91,760 along with interest.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed in part; impugned judgment set aside; awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,91,760 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition.

M K Sanjay Vs H Nagesh — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:48729 MFA No. 1252 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1252 OF 2013 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M.K. SANJAY, S/O KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, REPTD. BY MINOR GUARDIAN M.B. KRISHNEGOWDA, S/O LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O CAMBRIDGE CONVENT ROAD, GAYATHRI EXTN., CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI & K V NAIK., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

H. NAGESH MAJOR, NO.84, BLOCK POST OFFICE ROAD, T.R. NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 028.

¶15

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD NO.41, CRISTO COMPLEX, 2^ND FLOOR, LEVELLE ROAD, NEAR MANDAVI MOTORS, MARUTHI SHOW ROOM,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:48729 MFA No. 1252 of 2013

¶18

BANGALORE – 560 001 BY ITS MANAGER

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. RAMESH ANANTHAN ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI B. PRADEEP ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.5.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.168/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

The present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 23.05.2012 passed in MVC.No.168/2011 by the Fast Track Court at Channarayapatna, questioning dismissal of the claim petition.

¶26

Brief facts of the case are that, on 11.10.2008 at about 1.45 p.m., when the claimant was going by walk on the left side of Channarayapatna Government Hospital Road, in front of Parimala Canteen, the motor cycle

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:48729 MFA No. 1252 of 2013

¶28

bearing No.KA-05-EX-863 came with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the claimant. Due to which, he sustained injuries. Therefore, he filed the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act. But the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the reason that there is a delay of two days in lodging the complaint. Hence, disbelieved the factum of accident.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties

¶30

and perused the records.

¶31

In the present case, the accident is caused on 11.10.2008. The claimant is a minor boy. Therefore, father of the claimant has filed the complaint before the police on 13.10.2008 as per Ex.P.2. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the reason that there is a delay of two days in lodging the complaint and in the cross-examination of P.W.1 who is the father of the claimant has stated that he does not know who is the rider of the motor cycle.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:48729 MFA No. 1252 of 2013

¶34

Therefore, suspected the accident itself and thus,

¶35

dismissed the claim petition.

¶36

The reason given for lodging the complaint belatedly for two days is that the owner and rider of the motor cycle has promised to reimburse the medical expenses and upon his request, the complaint is not lodged immediately after the accident. But the owner and rider of the motor cycle did not turn up. Hence, the delay is caused for two days in lodging the complaint.

¶37

Upon considering this aspect, there is no much delay in lodging the complaint before the police regarding the accident, but not only this, from the other documentary evidence as to whether the accident has taken place and motor cycle is involved in the accident ought to be appreciated. In Ex.P.1-complaint, there is mentioning of motor cycle number. Ex.P.6 is the wound certificate, in which, it is stated that the claimant was admitted to the hospital with the history of accident that

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:48729 MFA No. 1252 of 2013

¶39

occurred on 11.10.2008 at about 1.45 p.m. Ex.P.37 is the inpatient record of the hospital, which also proves that the claimant met with an accident and sustained injuries in the said accident. Therefore, the reasoning given by the Tribunal in dismissal of the claim petition is not correct. When the rider of the motor cycle and owner makes promise to reimburse the medical expenses requesting not to file the complaint, quite naturally, the complaint could not have been filed immediately, but when the owner and rider of the motor cycle have not turned up, then the claimant was constrained to lodge the complaint before the police. Under these circumstances, there is a delay of two days, which is not a ground to reject the claim petition.

¶40

Therefore, upon considering the evidence on

¶41

record as discussed above, it is proved that the claimant had sustained injuries on 11.10.2008 at about 1.45 p.m., due to the accident caused by the motor cycle bearing

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:48729 MFA No. 1252 of 2013

¶43

No.KA-05-EX-863. Hence, respondent No.2-Insurnace Company shall indemnify respondent No.1-owner of the motor cycle and shall pay compensation to the claimant. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶44

From the medical evidence on record, it is proved that the claimant has suffered fracture of right ankle, fibula and tibia and other injuries all over the body. The Tribunal has determined compensation of Rs.45,000/-, but the same has not been awarded, since the claim petition is dismissed.

¶45

Considering the nature of injuries sustained by

¶46

the claimant, compensation of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the head injury, pain and sufferings.

¶47

Further the claimant has produced the medical

¶48

bills of Rs.20,000/- as per Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.32. Accordingly,

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:48729 MFA No. 1252 of 2013

¶51

compensation of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses and hospitalization charges.

¶52

The doctor is examined as P.W.2 and he has

¶53

stated that the claimant has suffered 15% of limb disability and therefore, 8% is taken as disability towards the whole body. The claimant is aged 14 years old boy and the accident was caused on 11.10.2008, therefore, notional income of Rs.4,500/- is taken into consideration. The appropriate multiplier applicable is “18”. Hence, the compensation under the head loss of future income due to disability is assessed and quantified as follows:

¶54

Rs.4,500/- x 8% x 18 x 12 =Rs.77,760/-

¶55

Accordingly, compensation of Rs.77,760/- is

¶56

awarded under the head loss of future income due to disability.

¶57

The compensation of Rs.9,000/- (Rs.4,500/p.m., x 2 months) is awarded under the head loss of

¶58

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:48729 MFA No. 1252 of 2013

¶59

income during laid up period to the parents of the claimant.

¶60

The compensation of Rs.25,000/- is awarded

¶61

under the head loss of amenities.

¶62

The compensation of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head incidental expenses i.e., food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges etc.,

¶63

Thus, in all, the appellant/claimant is entitled to

¶64

total compensation under various heads as follows:

¶65

1	Injury, pain and sufferings	Rs.	50,000/-
2	Medical expenses and hospitalization charges	Rs.	20,000/-
3	Loss of future income due to disability	Rs.	77,760/-
4	Loss of income during laid up period	Rs.	9,000/-
5	Loss of amenities	Rs.	25,000/-
6	Incidental expenses i.e., food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges etc.,	Rs.	10,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs.	1,91,760/-

¶66

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:48729 MFA No. 1252 of 2013

¶67

Thus, the appellant/claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,91,760/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

¶68

ORDER

¶69

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶70

ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 23.05.2012 passed in MVC.No.168/2011 by the Fast Track Court at Channarayapatna, is hereby set aside.

¶71

iii. The appellant/claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,91,760/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.

¶72

iv. No order as to costs.

¶73

v. Respondent No.2-Insurnace Company shall indemnify respondent No.1-owner of the motor cycle and shall pay compensation to the claimant.

¶74

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:48729 MFA No. 1252 of 2013

¶75

vi. Draw award accordingly.

¶76

vii. The appellant/claimant is not entitled for interest for the delay period of 118 days in filing the appeal.

¶77

viii. Registry is directed to transmit the TCR along with

¶78

copy of this order to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶79

SD/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶80

PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

M K Sanjay v. H Nagesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M K Sanjay v. H Nagesh

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

Sri R Jai Kumar Vs Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri. Chandan P. Vs Sri. Sreenivasaiah R.

Ganesh Vs N G Vijaya

Sri Jithendra Kumar Vs Sri Ansar R Varthik

Kum Aishwarya Vs Sri Vivek S Hebbar

Smt Sakamma Vs Sri Vivek S Hebbar