Partly allowed

Prathap Chandra Shetty v. Vishala Shivananda

Karnataka HC8 Aug 2024MFA/6963/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed motor accident claim appeal partly. Court enhanced compensation from Rs.2,87,300 to Rs.3,37,300 by increasing pain and suffering and loss of amenities heads, rejecting claim for future income loss. Insurance company directed to pay 90% due to 10% claimant negligence.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.337,300. Insurance company directed to deposit 90% within six weeks. Interest at 6% p.a. directed except for future medical expenses.

Prathap Chandra Shetty Vs Vishala Shivananda — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:31622 MFA No. 6963 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6963 OF 2019 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

PRATHAP CHANDRA SHETTY S/O PRAKASH CHANDRA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O KALPANA, HALNADU POST KUNDAPURA TALUK

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA HEGDE.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

VISHALA SHIVANANDA S/O SHIVANANDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O D NO.259, BASAVA CIRCLE BELLADA BHAGEVADI HUKKERI BELAGAVI.

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD KUNDAPURA BRANCH OFFICE SRI SAI COMPLEX 2ND FLOOR Y M SHETTY ROAD KUNDAPURA BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.JANARADHAN REDDY., 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: 08.07.2019

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:31622 MFA No. 6963 of 2019

¶18

PASSED IN MVC NO. 221/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA), KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING 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: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles

¶22

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant challenging by the judgment dated 08.07.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge and Additional MACT, Udupi (Sitting at Kundapura), Kundapura in MVC No.221/2018.

¶23

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 20.11.2017 at about 19.00 hours, the claimant was while standing on the left side of the road at Bondel Junction, Marakada, Mangalur City, at that time, the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-19ES-6087 came to Kavoor side ridden by its rider in a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and lost

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31622 MFA No. 6963 of 2019

¶25

control over the same and it came to extreme left side of the road and dashed against the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶26

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 riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.

¶27

Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and respondent No.2 filed written statement 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 claimant, in order to prove the case,

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31622 MFA No. 6963 of 2019

¶30

examined himself as PW-1, Dr.Mahabalesh Shetty was examined as PW-2 and another witness was examined as PW-3, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. On behalf of the respondents, two witnesses were examined as RW-1 and RW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R6. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of contributory negligence. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,87,300/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit 90% of the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶31

The learned counsel for the claimant has submitted

¶32

that the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-2. PW-2, the doctor has assessed the whole body disability at 24%. The Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation towards 'loss of future income'. Due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. Even after discharge from

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31622 MFA No. 6963 of 2019

¶34

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 compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side. Hence, he sought to allow the appeal.

¶35

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that after recovering from the injuries, the claimant has continued his job. Therefore, there is no loss of income. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly not awarded any compensation towards 'loss of future income'. Further, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are just and reasonable and it does not warrant interference. Hence, he sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:31622 MFA No. 6963 of 2019

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶38

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶39

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 20.11.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶40

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained tenderness swelling over the right leg, fracture of right distal tibia and fibula bones and multiple contusion over the right leg. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 24% to whole body. After recovering from the injuries, the claimant has continued his job. Therefore, there is no loss of income. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly not awarded any compensation towards 'loss of future income'. Considering the prolonged pain during treatment as well as the permanent disability certified by the doctor, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

¶41

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:31622 MFA No. 6963 of 2019

¶42

under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.70,000/to Rs.95,000/- and under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.70,000/- to Rs.95,000/- .

¶43

Thus, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/in addition to the compensation of Rs.287,300/- 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.337,300/- as against Rs.287,300/- awarded by the Tribunal .

¶48

d) Since contributory negligence of 10% is attributed on the claimant, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit 90% of the total compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:31622 MFA No. 6963 of 2019

¶50

period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. However, interest shall not be applicable to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'future medical expenses'.

¶51

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶52

DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Prathap Chandra Shetty v. Vishala Shivananda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prathap Chandra Shetty v. Vishala Shivananda

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

Nagarajanaik Vs Vinod Kumar

Sri Narayana Singh Vs by Its Manager

Narasimhappa @ Narasimhamurthy N Vs Royal Sundram General Insurance Co. Ltd.

D G Nagaraj Vs Kumar

Shashikumar L S Vs R Muralikumar

The Manager Vs Sri Aswathappa