Partly allowed

Sri. Pariyakat Kuriyakose Thomas v. Sri. Arun Kumar

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2024MFA/5996/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Miscellaneous First Appeal challenges an order enhancing compensation in a motor accident claim. The High Court enhanced the awarded compensation from Rs.10,220 to Rs.50,000 due to negligent driving causing injuries, directing insurers to deposit the amount.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.50,000. Insurers directed to deposit 50% each with interest.

Sri. Pariyakat Kuriyakose Thomas Vs Sri. Arun Kumar — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37141 MFA No. 5996 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5996 OF 2018 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. PARIYAKAT KURIYAKOSE THOMAS S/O P S KURIYAKOOSE AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NEAR VENKATESHWARA KALYANA MANTAPA DABBEKATTE, JAPTHI VILLAGE KUKNDAPURA TALUK.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. ARUN KUMAR S/O RAMA MOGAVEERA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O BASAVAPURA KODLU KONI VILLAGE, KUKNDAPURA TALUK-576101.

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JEWELL PLAZA MARUTHI VEETHIKA, UDUPI-572111.

¶14

SRI HARISHCHANDRA S/O LATE M R BHAT AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O GANDHI HOSPITAL UDUPI.

¶15

UNIVERSAL SAMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER EXPRESS IT PARK, PLOT NO.EL-94

¶16

T.T.C.INDUSTRIAL AREA

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:37141 MFA No. 5996 of 2018

¶19

MIDC MAHAPE, NAVI MUMBAI-40007010.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI., ADVOCATE FOR R2: SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVCOATE FOR R4: NOTICE TO R1 & R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05/02/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.721/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles

¶27

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant challenging by the judgment dated 05.02.2018 passed by MACT, Udupi (sitting at Kundapura) in MVC No.721/2016.

¶28

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 28.06.2015 when the claimant along

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37141 MFA No. 5996 of 2018

¶30

with others were traveling in car bearing registration No.KA-20-N-7255 from Haladi to Kundapura, at that time, the driver of the bus bearing No.KA-20-A-7723 drove the same at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, and over took the car and applied sudden break in order to avoid collusion against the motorcycle and hence the backside of the bus hit the car. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶31

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the 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.

¶32

Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 appeared through counsel and only respondent No.2 filed written statements denying the averments made in

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:37141 MFA No. 5996 of 2018

¶34

the claim petition. The respondent No.3, despite service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.

¶35

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.10,220/along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the respondent Nos.2 and 4 (both the Insurance Companies) to deposit the compensation amount equally along with interest at 50% each. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶36

The learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that the claimant has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. He has produced medical bills amounting to Rs.4,223/-. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37141 MFA No. 5996 of 2018

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

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

¶41

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the accident occurred on 28.06.2015 due to negligence of drivers of the both the vehicles i.e., bus and car.

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37141 MFA No. 5996 of 2018

¶43

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained dento alveolar fracture of Mandible with subluxation of Haematoma over scalp. He has produced medical bills amounting to Rs.4,223/-. 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 against Rs.10,220/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶44

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶47

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.50,000/- as against Rs.10,220/- awarded by the Tribunal .

¶48

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:37141 MFA No. 5996 of 2018

¶49

d) Respondent No.2 and respondent No.4 are directed to deposit the compensation amount equally (50% each) 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.

¶50

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶51

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54

Sri. Pariyakat Kuriyakose Thomas v. Sri. Arun Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Pariyakat Kuriyakose Thomas v. Sri. Arun Kumar

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

Sri. Padmanabha Y C Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Kavitha Vs Shivayogi

Shanmukhappa Vs Aravind Sanklipura

Mr Raghu Vs the Managing Director

Sri Saffan Husen Vs Sri a Abbas

Sri Sathish K Vs Smt Shilpakala P