Partly allowed

Harish Kumar v. Radhakrishna K

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2024MFA/2007/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed motor accident appeal partly, enhancing compensation from Rs. 2,24,300 to Rs. 2,77,709 due to inadequate award on pain and suffering, amenities, and food/conveyance heads while retaining the 50:50 liability ratio.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 2,24,300 to Rs. 2,77,709; interest on enhanced amount fixed at 6% p.a.; liability ratio of 50:50 retained.

Harish Kumar Vs Radhakrishna K — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11040 MFA No. 2007 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2007 OF 2020 (MV-I)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

HARISH KUMAR S/O SUNDARA POOJARY, NOW 26 YEARS, R/O KOORELU HOUSE, ARYAPU VILLAGE, SAMPYA POST, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT PIN-574 201.

¶6

…APPELLANT

¶7

(BY SRI. VISHWANATHA POOJARY K., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

RADHAKRISHNA K, NOW AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O DEVAPPA GOWDA, R/O KAYARAPU HOUSE, ARYAPU VILLAGE, SAMPYA POST, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, PIN-574 201.

¶11

THE MANAGER, IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 3^RD FLOOR, LALBAGH TOWER, BALLALBAGH, M G ROAD, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, PIN-575 003.

¶12

IBRAHIM

¶13

NOW AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O KUNHI MONU, R/O SAJIPA, NADUBASTHIGUDDE HOUSE, BANTWAL TALUK,

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11040 MFA No. 2007 of 2020

¶15

DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,

¶16

PIN-574 211.

¶17

THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, BRIDGE ROAD, BALMATT, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, PIN-575 001.

¶18

(BY SRI. LINGARAJ H S., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. K. SURESH., ADVOCATE FOR R4; VIDE ORDER DATED 02.02.2023, NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 IS DISPENSED WITH;)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 29.04.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.1159/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE V-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, D.K. MANGALURU SITTING AT PUTTUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 29.04.2019 passed by V Additional District and Sessions Judge, and Member, Additional MACT, D.K, Mangaluru sitting at Puttur, D.K (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC.No.1159/2017. This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11040 MFA No. 2007 of 2020

¶24

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

¶25

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶26

That on 16.03.2016 at about 4.30 a.m, the claimant Sri. Harish Kumar, was travelling as a pillion rider in a new unregistered Motor cycle bearing temporary registration No.KA19-NT/2015-16 from Puttur towards Sullia side, place called Sampya, Aryapu village, Puttur taluk. The claimant was travelling as a pillion rider, the rider of the Motor cycle rode the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Lorry bearing registration No.KA-19-AB-2949. Due to which claimant sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to Mahaveera Medical Centre, Puttur for treatment and thereafter to K.M.C Hospital Mangalore. Due to the injuries suffered he filed claim petition seeking compensation against respondent.

¶27

3.1. On service of notice, respondents filed statement of objection. Respondent No.3 remained ex-parte. It is pleaded in the statement that the case filed by the claimant is baseless, frivolous and liable to be dismissed and also denied the age,

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11040 MFA No. 2007 of 2020

¶29

avocation, income and negligence attributed against the rider of the Motor cycle and driver of the Lorry. Accordingly he sought for dismissal of claim petition.

¶30

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

¶31

3.3. In order to substantiate the issues and to establish

¶32

the case, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and Doctor as PW.2 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P17. On the other hand, respondents got marked documents as R1 and R2.

¶33

3.4. 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.2,24,300/- with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and fastened the liability on respondent Nos.2 and 4 in the ratio of 50:50 and directed respondent Nos.2 and 4 - Insurance Company of two wheeler and Lorry to pay the compensation within one month.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:11040 MFA No. 2007 of 2020

¶36

3.5. Being aggrieved by the meagre compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and award.

¶37

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

¶38

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company submits that the tribunal has rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for interference. Therefore, on these grounds, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶39

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant -

¶40

claimant and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 4 - Insurance Companies of the two wheeler and the Lorry. On perusal of the police records it is seen that FIR and Charge sheet is laid against the rider of the Motor cycle. The tribunal has fastened the liability in the ratio of 50:50 against both the vehicle drivers and the Insurance Company having issued the policy to the said vehicle have been directed to pay the

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:11040 MFA No. 2007 of 2020

¶42

compensation. The claimant is in appeal, whereas the Insurance Companies are not in appeal and neither filed any cross objections.

¶43

Learned counsel representing respondent No.4

¶44

contends that entire liability requires to be fastened on respondent No.2 as the FIR and Charge sheet is laid against him. However, it is seen that there is no appeal or cross objection preferred before this Court. Hence, the same is negatived.

¶45

Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation, income, the appropriate multiplier, so also, the disability. It is seen tribunal has taken the income Rs.9,000/- p.m. The appellant was aged 23 years as on the date of occurrence of accident. As per the Legal Service Authority Chart, the notional income for the period of 2016 is Rs.9,500/- p.m. Hence, Rs.9,500/- is taken as income.

¶46

Doctor has been examined as PW.2, who was opined the disability to an extent of 5%, same has been accepted by the tribunal. The appropriate multiplier in the present case, considering the age of the claimant would be '18'.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:11040 MFA No. 2007 of 2020

¶49

Therefore, Loss of future income due to disability would be Rs.1,02,600/- (Rs.9,500/- x 12 x 18 x 5%) is awarded as against Rs.97,200/- shown in the table.

¶50

Towards pain and suffering, the tribunal awarded Rs.12,000/-, which is less. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to award amount of Rs.25,000/- under this head.

¶51

Towards medical expenses a sum of Rs.69,609/- is awarded on the basis of actual bills produced by the claimant. Same is retained.

¶52

Towards loss of income during laid up period, the tribunal has awarded Rs.27,000/-. The claimant would require atleast three months period to recuperate and to get back to his normal day to day activities. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.28,500/- (Rs.9,500/- x 3) under this head.

¶53

Towards food, nourishment and attendant charges tribunal has awarded Rs.13,500/- and towards travelling expenses Rs.5,000/-. In view of the fact that appellant - claimant was inpatient for 27 days. This Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.27,000/- under this head.

¶54

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:11040 MFA No. 2007 of 2020

¶55

Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss

¶56

of amenities. This Court deems it appropriate to award

¶57

Rs.25,000/- under this head.

¶58

In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,77,709/- as against

¶59

Rs.2,24,300/- as mentioned in the table below:

¶60

Head	Amount in Rs.
Loss of future income	Rs. 1,02,600-00
Pain and suffering	Rs. 25,000-00
Loss of Amenities	Rs. 25,000-00
Loss of income during laid up	Rs. 28,500-00
period
Food, conveyance and	Rs. 27,000-00
attendant charges
Medical expenses	Rs. 69,609-00
TOTAL	Rs.2,77,709-00

¶61

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part ;

¶64

ii) The judgment and award dated 29.04.2019 passed by V Addditional District and Sessions Judge, and

¶65

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:11040 MFA No. 2007 of 2020

¶66

Member, Additional MACT, D.K, Mangaluru sitting at Puttur, D.K in MVC.No.1159/2017 is modified;

¶67

iii) The claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,77,709/- as against Rs.2,24,300/-;

¶68

iv) The interest awarded by the tribunal at the rate of 7% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.2,24,300/- is left undisturbed. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶69

v) Fastening of liability at the ratio of 50:50 against the respondent Nos.2 and 4, is retained;

¶70

vi) The enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶71

vii) The entire amount shall be released in favour of the claimant, upon proper verification.

¶72

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

¶73

Sd/JUDGE

¶74

¶75

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Harish Kumar v. Radhakrishna K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Kumar v. Radhakrishna K

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

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

Dhyamaiah Vs Nagaraju N .

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

Chetan G S Vs Nagaraj

Shri Praveen H Vs Shri S G Narasimha Murthy

Mr Santhosh Kumar v Vs Sri Sreeram R