Allowed

Sri Manjunatha Devadiga v. Sri R K M Shenoy

Karnataka HC26 Mar 2024MFA/7104/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant appealed a motor accident award seeking enhanced compensation and challenging the Tribunal's attribution of 20% contributory negligence to him. The court set aside the negligence finding, recalculated compensation using the Legal Services Authority chart with multiplier 13, and awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.1,09,438/- with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.1,09,438/- with 6% interest per annum from date of claim petition till realization, payable by second respondent Insurance Company within two months; Tribunal judgment modi

Sri Manjunatha Devadiga Vs Sri R K M Shenoy — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:12468 MFA No. 7104 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7104 OF 2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MANJUNATHA DEVADIGA S/O LATE SOORA DEVADIGA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MALADI, THEKKATTE VILLAGE AND POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. JAYAKARA SHETTY.H., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. R.K.M.SHENOY S/O MANGESH SHENOY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N R/O SRI. DHANVANTHARI PARAGA Location: HIGH THENKANIDIYUR VILLAGE, COURT OF UDUPI TALUK, KARNATAKA UDUPI DISTRICT-576 101.

¶13

THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD., MANIPAL BRANCH, MANIPAL, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 101.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. SHOBHITH.N.SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R1) SRI. M.U.POONACHA., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:12468 MFA No. 7104 of 2013

¶17

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:28.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO. 920/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, KUNDAPURA.

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Sri.Jayakara Shetty.H., learned counsel for the appellant has appeared in person.

¶21

Sri.M.U.Poonacha., learned counsel for respondent No.2 has appeared through video conferencing.

¶22

Though the appeal is listed today for dismissal, it is heard finally.

¶23

The claimant has preferred the captioned appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶24

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

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12468 MFA No. 7104 of 2013

¶26

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

¶27

The Claimant's appeal is one for enhancement of compensation and modification of the judgment. The Tribunal extenso referred to the material on record and concluded that the claimant has also attributed 20% of negligence to the accident. This is erroneous. The reason is simple. It is nobody's case that the claimant was crossing the road, on the contrary it was the case of the claimant that he was standing by the side of a mud road. The Tribunal has overlooked this aspect of the matter. Hence, I have no hesitation in setting aside the finding that the clamant has attributed 20% of negligence to the accident and hold that the driver of the offending vehicle has attributed negligence to the accident.

¶28

Furthermore, 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

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:12468 MFA No. 7104 of 2013

¶31

appropriate to award Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards pain and suffering as against Rs.35,000/(Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) awarded by the Tribunal.

¶32

It is noticed that the tribunal has awarded Rs.95,040/(Rupees Ninety Five Thousand and Forty only) towards future earning capacity due to disability. It is contended that the claimant was earning more than Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) per month. However, there is no proof of income. In the absence of any proof of income, the chart prepared by the Legal Service Authority must be taken into consideration. As per the chart, if the accident is occurred in the year 2011, the salary of the injured must be taken as Rs.6,500/- (Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred only) per month. The age of the claimant was 48 years as on the date of accident, hence the multiplier 13 is to be adopted.

¶33

At the time of calculation, learned counsel for the claimant and Insurance Company jointly submits that the Tribunal has considered the disability as 12% and the same may be taken into consideration in this appeal also. Hence,

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:12468 MFA No. 7104 of 2013

¶35

the amount towards loss of future earning capacity due to disability is calculated as under:

¶36

Rs.6,500/- X 12 X 13 X 12/100 = Rs.1,21,680/-.

¶37

This Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.20,000/(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards loss of amenities as against Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand only); Rs.52,000/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand only) towards Loss of income during laid up period as against Rs.48,000/(Rupees Forty Eight Thousand only).

¶38

The compensation of Rs.15,950/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty only) towards medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards Disfigurement remains intact.

¶39

This Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.20,000/(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards Conveyance, attendant's charge and food, extra nourishment charges as against Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only).

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:12468 MFA No. 7104 of 2013

¶41

Accordingly, this Court re-determines the

¶42

compensation as under:-

¶43

1.	Pain and Suffering	35,000+ 15,000	Rs.50,000/-
2.	Loss of future earning	1,21,680	Rs.1,21,680/-
	capacity due to disability 6,500 x 12 x 13 x 12/100
3.	Loss of amenities	10,000 +10,000	Rs.20,000/-
4.	Loss of income during laid up period	6,500 X 8	Rs.52,000/-
5.	Medical expenses	15,950	Rs.15,950/-
6.	Conveyance, attendant and food, extra nourishment charges	10,000+ 10,000	Rs.20,000/-
7.	Disfigurement	5,000	Rs.5,000/-
		Total:	Rs.2,84,630/-
	(Less) Compensation Tribunal:(80% of the a	awarded by the ward amount)	-Rs.1,75,192/-
	Enhanced compens	ation awarded by this Court:	Rs.1,09,438/-

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:12468 MFA No. 7104 of 2013

¶45

As already noted above, the finding of the Tribunal regarding attribution of 20% of negligence on the claimant is set-aside. Hence, the Insurance company is liable to satisfy the entire amount.

¶46

8. Hence, the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The Miscellaneous First appeal is

¶49

allowed and the Judgment dated:28.01.2013 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and Addl. Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Kundapura in M.V.C No.920/2011 is modified to the extent stated hereinabove.

¶50

The claimant is entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,09,438/(Rupees One Lakh Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Eight only) with 6% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:12468 MFA No. 7104 of 2013

¶52

The second respondent Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with 6% interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this Judgment.

¶53

The Registry to draw the modified award accordingly.

¶54

Office is directed to transmit the original records to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri Manjunatha Devadiga v. Sri R K M Shenoy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjunatha Devadiga v. Sri R K M Shenoy

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

Manjunatha Vs Rajashekara

The Manager Vs Smt Sandhya

Sri Shivakumar R Vs the Managing Director

Divisional Manager Vs Mahesh Nagesh Nayak

Smt Gangamma Vs Manjunatha v

Sri. S. Shivakumara Vs Sri Shivananju