Partly allowed

Sri Yashwanth D v. Sri Rafiq Ulla

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2024MFA/4772/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant appealed a motor accident award attributing 15% negligence to him and seeking enhancement of compensation. The court set aside the contributory negligence finding, noting the charge sheet against the offending canter's driver, and enhanced compensation from Rs.86,500/- to Rs.1,56,500/- with 6% interest on the enhanced amount.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.86,500/- to Rs.1,56,500/- with 6% interest on the enhanced amount; insurer directed to deposit within two months; contributory negligence set aside.

Sri Yashwanth D Vs Sri Rafiq Ulla — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:44247 MFA No. 4772 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA MFA NO. 4772 OF 2020 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.YASHWANTH D. S/O DODDAHONNAIAH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT KALLANAYAKANAHALLI HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 126 …APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH B., ADV.)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SRI. RAFIQ ULLA S/O KALEEL SAB R/AT MUCHIGARAHATTI SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DIST-572 137

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 2^ND FLOOR BALAJI ENCLAVE 2^ND STAGE BTM LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 075 …RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI.D. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 20.04.2023, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶14

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.5761/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-14), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:44247 MFA No. 4772 of 2020

¶17

COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

Being aggrieved by the attribution of negligence to

¶22

an extent of 15% on the claimant and also being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred this appeal.

¶23

The occurrence of the accident is not in dispute and

¶24

the liability of the insurer to satisfy the compensation is also not in dispute.

¶25

The Tribunal has proceeded to apportion the negligence to an extent of 15% on the claimant on the ground that the claimant had not produced material documents such as spot sketch as well as the vehicle documents and from this, it could be inferred that he was also responsible for the accident to a certain extent. In my view, this reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be accepted.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:44247 MFA No. 4772 of 2020

¶28

It is to be noticed here that the claimant was traveling in his motorcycle when it had a collision with a canter owned by the 1^st respondent. It is not in dispute that the driver of the offending vehicle has not been examined, whereas the claimant had categorically stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the canter owned by the 1^st respondent. It is also noticed that the charge sheet has also been laid against the driver of the vehicle owned by the 1^st respondent. Hence, the attribution of negligence to an extent of 15% on the claimant cannot be sustained. Consequently, the finding of the Tribunal is set aside.

¶29

As far as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has not awarded any sums towards loss of future income since the doctor who had been examined was not the treating doctor and the extent of disability assessed by him was extremely on the higher side. The Tribunal has noticed that the claimant was treated conservatively and, therefore, it came to the conclusion that there was no

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:44247 MFA No. 4772 of 2020

¶32

justification for holding that he was permanently disabled. In my view, the said finding of the Tribunal cannot be found fault.

¶33

However, it is noticed that the sums awarded under other heads are on the lower side. Since the claimant had suffered a fracture of patella, Rs.25,000/- awarded towards pain and sufferings, and Rs.30,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities by the Tribunal are enhanced to Rs.50,000/- each.

¶34

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/towards food, nourishment, conveyance and other miscellaneous charges and treated the laid-up period as one month and awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. In my view, since the claimant suffered fracture of patella, it would be appropriate to treat the laid up period as two months and award a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period and Rs.10,000/- towards food, nourishment, conveyance and other miscellaneous charges.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:44247 MFA No. 4772 of 2020

¶37

8. The amount of Rs.6,500/- awarded by the Tribunal

¶38

towards medical expenses, being based on documentary evidence, is affirmed.

¶39

Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified

¶40

and the following sums are awarded as compensation:

¶41

Sl. No.	Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal	As awarded by this Court
		(Rs.)	(Rs.)
1.	Pain and sufferings	25,000	50,000
2.	Medical expenses	6,500	6,500
3.	Loss of income during the laid up period	20,000	40,000
4.	Conveyance, nourishment and nutritious food	5,000	10,000
5.	Loss of amenities in life	30,000	50,000
	Total	86,500	1,56,500

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:44247 MFA No. 4772 of 2020

¶44

Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled for compensation of Rs.1,56,500/- as against Rs.86,500/along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till its realisation.

¶45

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation awarded within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶46

On such deposit being made, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same.

¶47

The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.

¶48

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶49

PKS

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Sri Yashwanth D v. Sri Rafiq Ulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Yashwanth D v. Sri Rafiq Ulla

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

Smt Naveeda Begaum Vs K Kajendra

The Manager Vs Krishnamurthy

Smt Ranjitha H K Vs Shri Nagaraj P Gangachari

The Executive Engineer (Ele) Vs Smt a Selvi

Mr. N. J. Kiran Vs Mrs. Chaitra

Mr Veena S Vs Mr Ravi M