Partly allowed

Ranga Naik v. Ramadas Naik

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2024MFA/4668/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pillion rider injured in a single-vehicle motorcycle accident appealed the Tribunal's Rs.95,761 award seeking enhancement. The court found no proof of permanent disability but enhanced compensation to Rs.1,89,761, granting an additional Rs.94,000 with 6% interest payable by the insurer.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.94,000 with 6% p.a. interest from date of petition till realization, deposited by insurer within four weeks.

Ranga Naik Vs Ramadas Naik — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:49490-DB MFA No. 4668 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4668 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RANGA NAIK, S/O HANUMA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A PADARAHALLI VILLAGE, HARISANDRA POST, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

RAMADAS NAIK, S/O LATE SEVIARAMA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NEAR BLOSSOM SCHOOL ROAD, NEAR KSRTC BUS-STAND, KANAKAPURA TOWN, DIST:RAMANAGARA. OWNER OF HERO HONDA SPLENDOR PLUS, MOTOR CYCLE BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER KA-42/H-9519.

¶15

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., 1^ST FLOOR, RVR COMPLEX, OPP:LIC OFFICE, BEHIND KSRTC BUS STAND, IJOOR, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.S.KRISHNA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 SERVED)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:49490-DB MFA No. 4668 of 2018

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.209/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT, MAGADI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and

¶22

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)

¶25

"Whether the compensation awarded to the appellantclaimant under the impugned award in MVC No.209/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi, is just?" is the question involved in this case.

¶26

The appellant was the sole claimant and respondent Nos.1 & 2 were respondent Nos.1 & 2 respectively in MVC No.209/2014 before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶27

On 02.08.2013 at 01.00p.m. when the claimant was traveling as pillion rider on the motorbike bearing Reg.No.KA42-H-9519 which was rode by his friend Chandraiah, near

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49490-DB MFA No. 4668 of 2018

¶29

Veeregowdanadoddi Village within the limits of Magadi police station, due to rash and negligent riding of said motorcycle, the rider hit the motorcycle to the road side electric pole. Due to the impact, claimant suffered injuries. The claimant was initially treated at Magadi Government Hospital. From there he was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, Bengaluru and treated as inpatient between 02.08.2013 to 05.08.2013.

¶30

Claimant contends that thereafter he was shifted to Victoria hospital and treated as inpatient from 05.08.2013 to 12.08.2013. At the time of accident, respondent Nos.1 & 2 were the registered owner and insurer of said motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-42-H-9519.

¶31

Claimant filed MVC No.209/2014 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi claiming that accident took place due to the actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and he suffered permanent physical disability due to the injuries suffered by him and lost his earnings, therefore, respondents are liable to pay Rs.20,00,000/-.

¶32

Respondent Nos.1 & 2 contested the petition denying the actionable negligence on the part of the rider of

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:49490-DB MFA No. 4668 of 2018

¶34

the motorcycle and age, occupation and income of the claimant and the injuries and permanent physical disability suffered by him. Respondent No.2 - insurer contended that its liability is subject to compliance of policy conditions.

¶35

Before the Tribunal the claimant got examined himself as PW-1 and on his behalf the doctor who treated him in NIMHANS hospital was examined as PW-2 on commission. On behalf of the claimant Exs.P-1 to P-23 were got marked. Respondents did not lead any evidence. The Tribunal, on hearing the parties, by the impugned award held that the accident occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the rider of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-42-H-9519. The Tribunal held that the claimant has failed to prove that he has suffered permanent physical disability, but he has suffered simple and grievous injuries. The Tribunal in all awarded compensation of Rs.95,761/- on different heads as follows:

¶36

Injury and Pain and suffering	Rs.55,000
Medical expenses	Rs.15,761
Attending charges and traveling	Rs.25,000
expenses and other expenses
Total	Rs.95,761

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:49490-DB MFA No. 4668 of 2018

¶39

The claimant has challenged the impugned award in

¶40

the above case on the ground that the Tribunal ought to have considered his case of permanent physical disability, loss of future earnings, etc.,

¶41

Reiterating the grounds of the appeal

¶42

Sri.Hanumantharayappa K., learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded on the heads of pain and suffering, medical expenses, attending charges, etc., are on the lower side and Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation on the heads of loss of income during laid-up period and loss of amenities.

¶43

Sri.S.Krishna Kishore, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - insurer justifies the impugned award on the ground that absolutely there was no medical evidence to show that claimant has suffered any permanent physical disability or loss of future earnings. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on all heads is just one.

¶44

Though the claimant contended that he had suffered permanent physical disability due to accidental injuries

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:49490-DB MFA No. 4668 of 2018

¶46

and he was treated in Victoria hospital, Bengaluru and Nirala Hosptial Mandya, he did not chose to examine the doctors from Victoria hospital and Nirala Hospital. PW-2, the Senior Resident (Neurology), Nimhans Hospital, Bengaluru, who was examined to prove injury and disability of the claimant, did not whisper anything about the permanent physical disability of the claimant. In his cross-examination PW-2 admits that he has not treated the claimant and he is deposing based on the medical records available in their hospital. He admitted that he has not given any treatment to the claimant. He says that on 16.05.2014 he examined the claimant, claimant complained that he has slurred speech and his right side body is not functioning as earlier and his mental health is imbalanced. But the doctor himself has not certified for all those things. However, the evidence of PW-2 and Ex.P-9 show that claimant was treated in NIMHANS hospital between 02.08.2013 and 05.08.2013 and he was found with the following injuries:

¶47

i. Right frontal and temporal abrasions

¶48

ii. Right hand volar aspect cut lacerated wound with skin loss.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:49490-DB MFA No. 4668 of 2018

¶51

According to Ex.P-9, on doing CT scan, the following was noticed:

¶52

"Diffused external injury with evidence of multiple areas of SWI bleeding."

¶53

Even in Ex.P-10, no major internal injury in the brain is

¶54

found. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the claimant has not suffered any permanent physical disability due to the accidental injuries.

¶55

As per Ex.P-5, the wound certificate issued by

¶56

General Hospital, Magadi, the claimant had suffered the following injuries:

¶57

Multiple abrasions over right hand

¶58

Abrasion over left knee

¶59

Contused abrasion over right side of forehead.

¶60

As per the said document injury Nos.1 & 2 were simple and injury No.3 was grievous one.

¶61

Even if the claimant's treatment in Victoria hospital is considered, the total period of hospitalization is eleven (11) days. Considering the fact that he had suffered one grievous injury, that too, head injury and the evidence of PW-2 that claimant had irritability, etc., at the best on the head of pain

¶62

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:49490-DB MFA No. 4668 of 2018

¶63

and suffering a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- can be awarded. The medical expenses was awarded based on the documents produced by the claimant himself. Having regard to the nature of injuries, it can be considered that the claimant would not have been able to attend his routine work for a period of three months. The reasonable notional income for the year 2013 could be considered at Rs.8,000/- p.m. Therefore, he can be awarded Rs.24,000/- (Rs.8,000 X 3) on the head of loss income during laid-up period. Having regard to the nature of injuries, Rs.25,000/- can be awarded on the head of loss of amenities.

¶64

The compensation awarded on the head of diet, attendant charges, & conveyance is just one. Therefore, the just compensation payable is as follows:

¶65

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount
1	Pain & suffering	Rs.1,00,000
2	Loss of income during laid-up period	Rs.24,000
3	Loss of amenities	Rs.25,000
4	Medical expenses	Rs.15,761
5	Diet, attendant charges, & conveyance	Rs.25,000
	Total	Rs.1,89,761
	Awarded by Tribunal	Rs.95,761
En	hanced compensation	Rs.94,000

¶66

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:49490-DB MFA No. 4668 of 2018

¶68

The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6%p.a. Respondent No.2 is liable to deposit the same.

¶69

For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to

¶70

be allowed in part. Hence, the following:

¶71

ORDER

¶72

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶73

ii. The appellant-claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.94,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶74

iii. Respondent No.2-insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶75

iv. On such deposit, the Tribunal shall digitally release the same to the claimant.

¶76

Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE

¶77

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶78

BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Ranga Naik v. Ramadas Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranga Naik v. Ramadas Naik

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

Satish @ Satishkumar K Vs Karthik Kumar

Mamtaz Vs Vidyuth Shetty

M/S Icici Lombard General Vs Mr Charles Mithun Shiri

Smt R Sujatha Vs Smt M Vidhya

Bharathi Vs P Sureshkumar

Narayanamma Vs K. G. Kadirappa