Partly allowed

A.N.Nachappa v. Pradeep Kumar H.K.

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2024MFA/1514/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal, the High Court considered an appellant's challenge seeking to enhance certificate-based compensation awarded by a tribunal in a motor vehicle accident case, finding the original amount inadequate and ordering a marginal increase.

What did the court decide?

Global compensation enhanced to Rs.1,10,000/-; interest on enhanced amount at 6% p.a. to be deposited within four weeks.

A.N.Nachappa Vs Pradeep Kumar H.K. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10922 MFA No. 1514 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1514 OF 2021 (MV-I)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

A.N.NACHAPPA S/O A.K.NANAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.21, KOTTALI VILLAGE, K.BOIKERI POST, VIRAJPET TALUK-571 218

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI.SHANTHARAJ K.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

PRADEEP KUMAR H.K. S/O KARIBASAPPA H.G. MAJOR, R/AT NO.2814, 7^TH CROSS, HOSAHUNDI, CHAMUNDIPURAM, MYSURU-570 004

¶11

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

NATIONAL INS. CO LTD BY ITS MANAGER, NO.656/C, 1^ST FLOOR 17^TH MAIN, 5^TH CROSS OPP. ROYAL ENGLISH SCHOOL SARSWATHIPURAM, MYSURU-570 009.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI .,ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 15.03.2024)

¶14

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 30.05.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.178/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MACT, MYSURU,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:10922 MFA No. 1514 of 2021

¶17

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is preferred by the appellant - claimant challenging the judgment & award dated 30^th May 2018 passed in MVC No.178/2015 on the file of the Principal Judge, Court of Small Causes & MACT, Mysuru (for short

¶20

'the Tribunal ). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶21

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

¶22

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶23

On 23.5.2014 the claimant was travelling on a

¶24

motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.12 K-9608 and when he reached Buleward circle, Mysuru, at that time the

¶25

car bearing registration No.KA-51 3783 driven by its driver

¶26

in a rash and negligent manner came in a high speed and

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:10922 MFA No. 1514 of 2021

¶29

dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant, due to which he fell down and sustained injuries. He was immediately shifted to Shree Shanthaveri Memorial Hospital, Mysuru, where he took treatment as in-patient.

¶30

3.1 It is also pleaded that prior to occurrence of the accident, the claimant was hale and healthy and working as Security Guard earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the occurrence of accident and injuries suffered, the claimant is unable to do work as he was doing prior to the accident. Hence, the claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

¶31

3.2 Respondent Nos.1 and 2 though served

¶32

remained unrepresented and they were placed exparte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.3/insurer filed the written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition including age, avocation, income and negligence attributed against driver of the offending vehicle and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:10922 MFA No. 1514 of 2021

¶35

3.3 Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the relevant issues for consideration.

¶36

3.4 In order to substantiate the issues and establish the case, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. The respondents did not adduce any evidence nor produced any documents on their behalf.

¶37

3.5 On the basis of the material evidence, both oral and documentary and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal awarded global compensation of Rs.75,000/- with interest at 8% per annum and directed the respondent No.3/insurer to deposit the compensation amount within thirty days.

¶38

3.6 Being aggrieved by the meager and inadequate

¶39

compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶40

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel

¶41

for the appellant that the global compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side.

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10922 MFA No. 1514 of 2021

¶43

Therefore, he seeks to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation.

¶44

Per contra, learned counsel representing the insurance company contends that there is no error, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He further contends that the Tribunal awarded just and reasonable compensation under all heads, in accordance with the material evidence, both oral and documentary and the same does not call for interference.

¶45

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, it is seen that the claimant has produced the documents as per Exs.P1 to P13, out of which, Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are the Police records, which clearly depict registration of the FIR and filing of charge sheet against driver of the offending vehicle and same have not been challenged or controverted. Therefore, the tribunal rightly attributed the negligence against driver of the offending vehicle. Ex.P4 to Ex.P13

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:10922 MFA No. 1514 of 2021

¶48

are the medical records, which depict the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident.

¶49

It is not in dispute that that the claimant sustained simple/fracture injuries as per the wound certificate/Ex.P6. In the instant case, the claimant neither produced the disability certificate nor examined the doctor. However, the Tribunal awarded global compensation of Rs.75,000/-. Considering the fact that the claimant was in-patient for two days and suffered certain fractures, this Court is of the opinion that some compensation requires to be awarded towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to marginally enhance the global compensation awarded by the Tribunal by Rs.35,000/-.

¶50

In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- as against Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:10922 MFA No. 1514 of 2021

¶53

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶54

O R D E R

¶55

i) The appeal is allowed in part ;

¶56

ii) The impugned Judgment & Award dated 30^th May 2018 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.178/2015, is modified.

¶57

iii) The appellant/claimant would be entitled to global compensation of Rs.1,10,000/(Rupees one lakh ten thousand only) as against Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶58

iv) The interest awarded by the tribunal at the rate of 8 % per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.75,000/- is left undisturbed.

¶59

v) The enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited with interest at 6% per annum by the respondent/insurer within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶60

vi) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant-claimant as per the terms of the tribunal upon proper identification.

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:10922 MFA No. 1514 of 2021

¶63

vii) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the Tribunal shall stand intact.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

A.N.Nachappa v. Pradeep Kumar H.K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.N.Nachappa v. Pradeep Kumar H.K.

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

Deepak K.G. Vs Sugu G @ Sukumaran

Rathnamma @ Nagarathnamma @ Nagarathna Vs S Raghu

Mahesh D Vs Santosh

Dhyamaiah Vs Nagaraju N .

Gangadhara L Poojari Vs the Manager Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Smt Sudhamani K S @ Sudha Vs Darshan a R