Allowed

Thammaiah v. a M Nagaraja

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2024MFA/6957/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Miscellaneous First Appeal arose from a Motor Vehicle Accident claim. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by Rs.47,881 towards Specific Losses and providing interest on the enhanced amount.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced by Rs.47,881 with 6% per annum interest; insurer directed to deposit amount within two months.

Thammaiah Vs a M Nagaraja — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:8765 MFA No. 6957 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6957 OF 2016(MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THAMMAIAH S/O VENKATESHA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, AUTO DRIVER, R/A JOGIKOPPALU VILLAGE, KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SHREYAS.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRIKANTH PATIL.K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

A.M.NAGARAJA S/O MALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/A BHAVIMANE BEEDHI, MARGADA CAMP, BIRUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK,

¶14

CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 548.

¶15

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SHIMOGGA BRANCH, SHIMOGGA - 577 201. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(R1 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED BY SRI. S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER

¶19

SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 01.01.2016

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:8765 MFA No. 6957 of 2016

¶22

PASSED IN MVC NO.74/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, MACT, KADUR, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Sri.Shreyas.N., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Srikanth Patil., for the appellant and Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand., learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have appeared in person.

¶26

Notice to respondents was ordered on 07.03.2017. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondent No.1 is served and unrepresented. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

¶27

Though the appeal is listed today for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, it is heard finally.

¶28

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.

¶29

It is the case of the claimant that on the 14^th day of November 2011, he was traveling in a Auto-rickshaw bearing

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:8765 MFA No. 6957 of 2016

¶31

Registration No.KA-18/8757 towards Birur on the left side of the road. At about 12:00 noon, near Classic Motor Garage in Kadur on N.H.206, a Maruti Suzuki Dezire Car bearing Registration No.KA-18-N-3959 driven by the first respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against a car bearing Registration No.KA-51-M-802 and then hit the autorickshaw of the claimant. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Mc.Ghan Hospital, Shivamogga and then shifted to Nanjappa Hospital, Shivamogga and then to PKS Hospital, Birur and took treatment as an in-patient up to 16.11.2011. He also took treatment at Vishwamanava Hospital, Birur as an outpatient. Contending that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Suzuki Dezire car, the claimant filed claim petition seeking compensation.

¶32

In response to the notice, the first respondent did not appear before the Tribunal, hence he was placed ex-parte . The second respondent - Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed statement of objections and admitted that the offending car was insured with the second respondent, however

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:8765 MFA No. 6957 of 2016

¶35

the liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Among other grounds they prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶36

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues. The parties led evidence. and marked the documents. The Tribunal vide judgment dated:01.01.2016 partly allowed the claim petition. It is this Judgment that is called into question in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Miscellaneous First Appeal.

¶37

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to the evidence on record and law.

¶38

Next, he submits that the Tribunal has erred in awarding meagre amount under the different heads.

¶39

Lastly, he submits that the Tribunal has erred in awarding a compensation of Rs.2,03,650/- (Rupees Two lakh Three Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty only) with interest at 8% per annum. Therefore, he submits that the award of the Tribunal requires interference and accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:8765 MFA No. 6957 of 2016

¶42

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company justified the Judgment of the Tribunal. He submits that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.

¶43

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the appeal papers and also the records with utmost care.

¶44

The point that would arise for consideration is whether the Claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation?

¶45

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. The Claimant's appeal is one for enhancement of compensation and modification of the judgment. The Tribunal taking note of the material evidence on record concluded that the Claimant sustained injuries due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruti Suzuki Dezire car.

¶46

The grounds urged in the present appeal are mainly relating to the meager compensation awarded under different heads by the Tribunal. The Claimant has suffered pain and agony owing to the injuries sustained in the accident in question. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:8765 MFA No. 6957 of 2016

¶49

Traveling/ Conveyance and Attendant Charges/ nutritious food as against Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) and Rs.20,000/(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards discomfort and loss of amenities of life as against Rs.15,000/(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) awarded by the Tribunal.

¶50

The amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards Pain and Sufferings, Rs.13,578/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Eight only) towards Medical expenses awarded by the Tribunal remains intact.

¶51

It is noticed that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards loss of income during period of treatment/ rest. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.26,000/(Rupees Twenty Six Thousand only) [Rs.6,500/- X 4 months = 26,000] as against Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only).

¶52

Similarly, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.1,16,953/- (Rupees One lakh Sixteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Three only) [6,500 X 8.33 X 12 X 18/100] towards loss of future income as against Rs.90,072/- (Rupees

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:8765 MFA No. 6957 of 2016

¶55

Ninety Thousand and Seventy Two only) awarded by the Tribunal.

¶56

Accordingly, this Court re-determines the

¶57

compensation as under:-

¶58

1.	Pain and Sufferings	50,000	Rs.50,000/-
2.	Medical Expenses	13,578	Rs.13,578/-
3.	Traveling/ Conveyance Attendant Charges/ Nutritious food (10,000 + 5,000)	15,000+ 10,000	Rs.25,000/-
4.	Loss of Income during period of treatment/ rest	6,500 X 4	Rs.26,000/-
5.	Future loss of income	90,072 +26,881	Rs.1,16,953/-
6.	Towards discomfort and loss of amenities of life	15,000+ 5,000	Rs.20,000/-
		Total:	Rs.2,51,531/-
	(Less) Compensation	awarded by the Tribunal:	-Rs.2,03,650/-
	Enhanced compensa	tion awarded by this Court:	Rs.47,881/-

¶59

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:8765 MFA No. 6957 of 2016

¶61

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the prevailing rate of interest during the relevant time, this Court deems it appropriate to award interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of claim petition till realization.

¶62

Hence, the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

The Miscellaneous First appeal is allowed in part and the Judgment dated:01.01.2016 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T, Kadur, Chikmagalur in M.V.C No.74/2012 is modified to the extent stated hereinabove.

¶65

The claimant is entitled for the enhanced

¶66

compensation of Rs.47,881/- (Rupees Forty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty One only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.

¶67

The second respondent - Insurance

¶68

Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation

¶69

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC:8765 MFA No. 6957 of 2016

¶71

amount along with 6% interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified

¶72

copy of this Judgment.

¶73

4. Needless to observe that the claimant is

¶74

not entitled for the interest for the delay period.

¶75

The Registry to draw the modified award

¶76

accordingly.

¶77

Office is directed to transmit the original

¶78

records to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

¶79

Sd/JUDGE

¶80

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Thammaiah v. a M Nagaraja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thammaiah v. a M Nagaraja

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 K Shanthamma W/O Jagadeesha Vs the Milk Producer Co-Operative Union Ltd.

Somashekar Vs M/S. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd

Sri Chandraiah Vs Sri Chandra Shetty

Sri. Manjunath a. v. Vs Sri. Abdul Khayam

Slns Transport Vs Smt Manjula

Mr Mohan T Vs Mrs Vasantha T