Partly allowed

Rohith v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC20 Aug 2024MFA/7536/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor vehicle accident claim appeal, the Karnata High Court partially allowed an appeal against a district tribunal's award. The court enhanced compensation for loss of amenities and added damages for the period of work absence, increasing the total payable amount by Rs. 1,45,000.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced total compensation of Rs. 7,19,750/- awarded with 6% interest p.a.; Respondent no.1 to pay balance within six weeks.

Rohith Vs the Managing Director — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:33314 MFA No. 7536 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶4

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7536 / 2016 (MV-I)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

ROHITH, S/O MUDDURAJ, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O NO.25/27, 3^RD CROSS, SANJEEVAININAGAR, BENGALURU 560 091.

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR K., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K S R T C ., SHANTHINAGAR, DOUBLE ROAD, BENGALURU 560 027.

¶11

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI REVANNA SIDDAPPA PUJARI @ REVANA SIDDAPPA PUJARI, S/O HANUMANTHARAYA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.23/3, RAJESHWARINAGAR, LAGGERE, BENGALURU 560 058. (OWNER OF THE TATA INDICA CAR BEARING NO.KA-02-AB-704)

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

[BY SRI D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R12 (VC)]

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.03.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1394/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, & XX ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH24), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶16

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:33314 MFA No. 7536 of 2016

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

Challenging judgment and award dated 10.03.2016 passed by XXII Addl. Small Causes Judge & XX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, MACT (SCCH-24), Bengaluru, in MVC no.1394/2014, this appeal is filed.

¶21

Sri Rajashekar K, learned counsel for appellant submitted, on 02.02.2014 at 6:00PM when claimant was traveling in Tata India car bearing registration no.KA-02-AB704 on Bengaluru-Magadi main road, driver of KSRTC bus bearing no.KA-42-F-1778 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against it. In accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to hospital. Despite taking treatment at Sri Lakshmi Multi Specialty Hospital, Magadi road, he did not recover fully and suffered permanent disability. Prior to accident he was working as CNC Machine Operator in S.K. Toolings, Peenya II Stage, Bengaluru and earning Rs.10,000/per month. Due to disability suffered, he was not able to earn income.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:33314 MFA No. 7536 of 2016

¶24

In claim petition filed by him under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act ('MV Act' for short), respondents entered appearance and opposed claim petition.

¶25

Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence, wherein claimant was examined as PW.1 and Dr.C.V. Kumar was examined as PW2. Exs.P.1 to P.13 were got marked. On behalf of respondents driver of bus was examined as RW.1.

¶26

On consideration, tribunal answered issue no.1 in affirmative, issue no.2 in negative, issue no.3 partly in affirmative and issue no.4 by assessing total compensation at Rs.74,750/- and holding respondent no.1 - Corporation liable to pay same.

¶27

It was submitted, while assessing compensation tribunal had failed to award compensation under head 'future loss of income'. It was submitted, claimant had sustained several minor injuries apart from grievous fracture of femur and clavicle. Tribunal had awarded meager amount of Rs.40,000/- towards 'pain and suffering'. It was submitted that he was inpatient for a period of 35 days, compensation

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33314 MFA No. 7536 of 2016

¶29

awarded under 'food, nutrition, conveyance and attendant charges' at Rs.40,000/- in total, was on lower side. No compensation was awarded towards 'loss of income during laid up period'. Even compensation awarded towards 'future medical expenses' and 'loss of amenities' were also on lower side and sought for enhancement.

¶30

On other hand, Sri D. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.1-Corporation sought to oppose appeal. It was submitted tribunal considered entire material on record in proper perspective and assessed just compensation and there was no scope for enhancement.

¶31

Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award.

¶32

From above, occurrence of accident involving bus belonging to respondent no.1-Corporation due to rash and negligent driving by its driver, claimant sustaining injuries and consequent permanent disability suffered by him are not in dispute. Tribunal assessed compensation and held Corporation liable to pay same.

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33314 MFA No. 7536 of 2016

¶34

Only claim in appeal is for enhancement, therefore

¶35

point that would arise for consideration is:

¶36

" Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?"

¶37

Insofar as monthly income, claimant had stated that he was working as CNC Machine Operator. Accident occurred in year 2014. Notional income for year 2014 was Rs.8,500/-. CNC Machine Operator would be a skilled employee, therefore income claimed at Rs.10,000/- would be reasonable and accepted. Admittedly, claimant sustained about 7 minor injuries as enlisted in para no.20 of award apart from fracture of left femur and clavicle. Tribunal had awarded Rs.40,000/- towards 'pain and suffering'. Since fracture of clavicle and femur are grievous in nature, it would be appropriate to award Rs.80,000/- towards 'pain and suffering'. Tribunal has awarded sum of Rs.4,14,750/- towards 'medical expenses' in complete reimbursement of amount for which bills were produced. In view of same, there would be no scope for enhancement.

¶38

As per medical records, claimant was under inpatient treatment for a period of 35 days. Tribunal had awarded

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33314 MFA No. 7536 of 2016

¶40

Rs.10,000/- towards 'food and nourishment', Rs.10,000/towards 'conveyance' and Rs.20,000/- towards 'attendant charges', which appears to be reasonable and does not call for enhancement. As per material on record, there are implants in situ apart from wound being wet with pus discharge. Tribunal had awarded Rs.30,000/- towards future medical expenses which appears to be just and proper.

¶41

Insofar as 'future loss of income', though Dr.C.V Kumar - PW.2 stated that claimant had sustained permanent disability to an extent of 20% in respect of left shoulder and 30% in respect of right lower limb and 32% in respect of left lower limb and 27% insofar as whole body disability. However, tribunal recorded specific finding that fractures are united and claimant has failed to lead evidence that he was removed from job or there was reduction in earning. On said reason, it refused to grant compensation towards 'future loss of income'. There are no grounds to take a different view from same. However, merely on ground that claimant did not sustain loss of earning capacity, it would not be justified in awarding meager compensation towards 'loss of amenities' as disability sustained would affect claimant in routine life. Taking note that

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:33314 MFA No. 7536 of 2016

¶43

he was just 21 years of age, compensation towards 'loss of amenities' is to be enhanced. It would be appropriate to enhance it to Rs.1,25,000/- under this head. In view of fracture sustained, claimant would have remained away from work for a minimum period of three months. Therefore, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- for same. Thus, point for consideration is partly answered in affirmative. Consequently, following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

Appeal is allowed in part.

¶46

Claimant is held entitled for compensation of Rs.7,19,750/- as against Rs.5,74,750/- awarded by tribunal. Enhanced compensation of Rs.1,45,000/- shall carry interest at 6% per annum from date of petition till deposit. Respondent no.1 is held liable to pay same excluding interest for delayed period of 114 days within six weeks.

¶47

Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to tribunal for payment. Balance amount to be deposited within six weeks. Upon deposit, same shall be released in favour of claimant.

¶48

Sd/- ( RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶49

psg*:List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Rohith v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohith v. the Managing Director

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

Mr v Lakshmi Pathi Vs Mr D Sadayan

Cheluvaraju Vs Dr Sujatha Desai

Siddaraju Vs L and T General Insurance Co. Ltd.

M C Udaya Kumar Vs Mahaboob Basha

Sri Sannakariyappa Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri.L.Siddegowda Vs Kumara