Partly allowed

Sri.L.Siddegowda v. Kumara

Karnataka HC20 Aug 2024MFA/7919/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First appeal filed by motorcycle accident claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The High Court partially allowed the appeal, enhancing compensation for loss of income during laid-up period and disability, while upholding the Tribunal's award for pain and suffering and other heads, and confirming the absolution of insurer liability.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation to Rs. 4,29,000/- with 6% interest; insurer liability absolution confirmed.

Sri.L.Siddegowda Vs Kumara — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:33401 MFA No. 7919 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7919/2016 (MV-I)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI.L.SIDDEGOWDA, S/O LAXMAN GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, TRAINER S.V.G.H. VACATIONAL TRAINING COLLEGE, K.M.ROAD, MUGTHIHALLI,

¶7

R/AT IDAHALLI VILLAGE, AVATHI HOBLI, CHIKKAMANGALURU TALUK AND DIST-577 101.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI JAYAKIRTHI M.C., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

KUMARA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O GUNDE GOWDA, R/O KONTHAGONDANAHALLI, SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT. (D.L NO.KA.1982/2007-2008 VALIDITY UPTO 31-5-2016).

¶12

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

¶13

SHIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SOUTH-WEST ZONE, E/8, EPIP, RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPURA, RAJASTHAN STATE, (POLICY NO.10003/31/10/012029 VALIDITY 28-4-2009 TO 27-4-2010.

¶14

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CHIKMAGALURU-577 101, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE SERVED TO R1 BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.570/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:33401 MFA No. 7919 of 2016

¶19

SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Challenging judgment and award dated 24.06.2016 passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chikkamagaluru (for short 'Tribunal') in MVC.no.570/2012, this appeal is filed by claimant.

¶24

Sri Jayakirthi M.C., learned counsel for appellant submitted that on 04.02.2012 at about 3:30 p.m., when claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing registration no.KA18-S-2838 on Chikkamagaluru, Sringeri road, a Lorry bearing registration no.KA-19-AE-9449, driven by respondent no.1 in rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and dashed against motorcycle causing accident. In said accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries and was initially taken to PHC Aldur and later took treatment at Mangala Hospital and Mangala Kidney Foundation, Mangaluru. Despite taking inpatient treatment, he did not recover fully and sustained permanent physical disability.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:33401 MFA No. 7919 of 2016

¶27

It was submitted that as on date of accident, claimant was 32 years of age and working as Lecturer in SVGH Vocational Training College and earning Rs.15,000/- per month (later increased to Rs.20,000/-). Due to disability sustained, he had lost earning capacity and filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation.

¶28

On service of notice, respondent no.1 - owner did not enter appearance and was placed ex-par te. Insurers of motorcycle as well as lorry appeared and opposed claim petition.

¶29

Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant was examined as PW-1 and Dr.Ullas Shetty was examined on commission as CW-1. Exs.P1 to P54 and Ex.C1 were got marked. In rebuttal, official of insurer was examined as RW-1 and Exs.R1 to R3 got marked.

¶30

On consideration, Tribunal answered issues no.1 and 2 in affirmative; additional issue no.1 in negative and issue no.3 by assessing compensation at Rs.3,54,000/- and holding respondent no.1 - owner of Lorry liable to pay compensation. Aggrieved thereby, claimant is in appeal for enhancement.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:33401 MFA No. 7919 of 2016

¶33

It was submitted though claimant had sustained dislocation of right hip and fracture of left femur, Tribunal had awarded only Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering. It was submitted, compensation of Rs.32,000/- towards attendant, food and nourishment charges was on lower side. Claimant had taken inpatient treatment for period of 29 days, award of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges was on lower side. It was submitted, merely on ground that claimant had continued avocation did not justify award of Rs.50,000/- only towards loss of disability and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of income during laidup period. Hence, sought for enhancement.

¶34

On other hand, Sri B.C. Shivanne Gowda and Sri O. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for insurers of vehicles submitted that Tribunal had absolved liability of insurers on ground that driver of lorry did not possess valid and effective driving licence as on date of accident. Tribunal held that entire negligence for causing accident was by driver of lorry and therefore, there was no good grounds to upset finding regarding liability.

¶35

Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award.

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33401 MFA No. 7919 of 2016

¶37

Respondent no.1 - owner is served and

¶38

unrepresented.

¶39

From above since claimant is in appeal for

¶40

enhancement of compensation, point that would arise for consideration is:

¶41

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

¶42

Insofar as pain and suffering, Tribunal has taken note of fact that claimant sustained dislocation of right hip and fracture of left femur in addition to other minor injuries. Considering grievous nature of both injuries, it awarded Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering which does not appear to be inadequate. Therefore, no interference is called for.

¶43

Claimant has taken inpatient treatment for period of 29 days. Considering same, award of Rs.32,000/- towards attendant, food and nourishment etc. would be just and proper and not call for any interference. Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,52,000/- towards medical expenses, which is in complete reimbursement of amount for which bills were produced. Therefore, there would be no scope for enhancement. Tribunal

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33401 MFA No. 7919 of 2016

¶45

awarded Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges which also

¶46

appears to be just and proper and therefore no enhancement.

¶47

There is no dispute about avocation of claimant as Lecturer in SVGH Vocational Training College. As per Ex.P54 - Salary Certificate, claimant was getting gross salary of Rs.25,000/- as on date of deposition. Though, he has admitted that he was getting net salary of Rs.15,000/- as on date of accident, gross salary has to be considered. For want of clarification, it is determined at Rs.20,000/-. Admittedly, claimant was away from work during period of treatment and recuperation for five months for which Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/-. In view of determination of income, compensation towards loss of income during laidup period requires to be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- .

¶48

Considering nature of injuries and disability sustained, even though claimant may not have sustained loss of earning capacity, disability would affect in his life, which requires to be compensated on a more substantial scale than as loss of amenities as no compensation is awarded towards loss of future income. Therefore, it would be appropriate to enhance compensation towards disability from Rs.50,000/to

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:33401 MFA No. 7919 of 2016

¶51

Rs.75,000/- . Thus, claimant is held entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,29,000/- as against Rs.3,54,000/awarded by Tribunal. Point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative as above. Consequently following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶54

ii. Claimant is held entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.4,29,000/- as against Rs.3,54,000/- awarded by Tribunal which shall carry interest at rate of 6% per annum from date of claim petition till deposit.

¶55

iii. Respondent no.1 - owner is directed to deposit same within a period of eight weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶56

iv. It is clarified that order of absolving liability of both insurers by Tribunal is not disturbed.

¶57

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶58

GRD

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Sri.L.Siddegowda v. Kumara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.L.Siddegowda v. Kumara

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.

Rohith Vs the Managing Director

M C Udaya Kumar Vs Mahaboob Basha

Sri Sannakariyappa Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.