Partly allowed

Sri. Rajesha v. Sri. Sharath H.D.

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2024MFA/5949/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Motor Vehicles Act first appeal, the High Court modified the Tribunal's award, enhancing compensation from Rs.20,000 to Rs.50,000 for injuries sustained in a rash and negligent road accident, directing the insurer to pay with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.50,000 from Rs.20,000; interest at 6% p.a. directed; payment to be made within six weeks.

Sri. Rajesha Vs Sri. Sharath H.D. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39010 MFA No. 5949 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5949 OF 2019 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. RAJESHA S/O GUTHLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A H BYADARAHALLI VILLAGE MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. RAJU S.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. SHARATH H.D. S/O DASAIAH R/AT HANUMANTHA NAGARA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANGARA DISTRICT.

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.2241/4, GIRIYAMMA SHAMBUGOWDA COMPLEX CHURCH ROAD, CHANNAPATNA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT BY THE BRANCH MANAGER

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. MAMTHA SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.06.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.291/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, & ADDITIONAL MACT, CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, PARTLY ALLOWING

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39010 MFA No. 5949 of 2019

¶18

THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant challenging by the judgment dated 18.06.2019 passed by MACT, Channapatna in MVC No.291/2015.

¶23

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 12.05.2015 when the claimant was proceeding by walk in front of Polytechnic College on Bangalore-Mysore road, at that time, Ape Auto bearing registration No.KA-42-9961 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39010 MFA No. 5949 of 2019

¶25

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the

¶26

Act, seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent significant amount towards medical expenses, conveyance charges and other related costs. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶27

Upon service of notice, the respondents appeared through counsel and filed written statements denying the averments made in the claim petition.

¶28

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and award has partly allowed the claim petition and held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.20,000/along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39010 MFA No. 5949 of 2019

¶30

The learned counsel for the claimant has submitted

¶31

that the claimant has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. He has produced medical bills amounting to Rs.2,780/-. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the same, the overall compensation granted by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he sought to allow the appeal.

¶32

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the claimant has sustained simple injuries and he has not examined the doctor regarding nature of injuries and disability suffered by him. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries and medical records, the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable compensation and it does not call for interference. Hence, he sought to dismissal the appeal.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39010 MFA No. 5949 of 2019

¶35

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the accident occurred on 12.05.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶36

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained pain in left temporal area, abrasion in both the knee anterior. He has produced medical bills amounting to Rs.2,780/-. He has not examined the doctor regarding nature of injuries and disability suffered by him. Therefore, considering the evidence of the claimant, nature of injuries mentioned in the wound certificate and medical records, I am inclined to award a compensation of Rs.50,000/- as

¶37

against Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶38

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶41

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39010 MFA No. 5949 of 2019

¶43

c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.50,000/- as against Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶44

d) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶45

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶46

DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Sri. Rajesha v. Sri. Sharath H.D.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Rajesha v. Sri. Sharath H.D.

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

Harini B Vs Divisional Controller Ksrtc

Smt Rukmini Vs Anthony Waste Handling Cell Pvt. Ltd.

Naganna @ Nagaraja Vs Yeshavanthanaika

The Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Pushpavathi

Srirangappa Vs Sadiq Ali

Sri Basavaraju Vs Sri. Channappa