Partly allowed

Sri. K v. Reddappa @ Reddyappa K v Vs Sri. Byregowda

Karnataka HC29 Aug 2024MFA/7967/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partially allowed an appeal by a motor accident victim seeking enhancement of compensation. The court enhanced awards for loss of income, physical disablement, and loss of amenities, reducing the interest rate from 9% to 6% p.a. ordered the insurance company to deposit the enhanced amount.

What did the court decide?

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,40,500/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization.

Sri. K v Reddappa @ Reddyappa K v Vs Sri. Byregowda — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:34787 MFA No. 7967 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7967 OF 2018 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. K V REDDAPPA @ REDDYAPPA K V S/O KADIRECHERURU VENKATARAVANA R/AT KASHIPALLE VILLAGE YERRAMPARIPALLI POST BOGAMVARIPALLI HOBLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI.B.C. THIPPESWAMY .,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. BYREGOWDA S/O ASHWATHAPPA R/AT NO.38, BHIMAPURA VILLAGE SHIVANAPURA POST, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT.

¶13

THE LEGAL MANAGER M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., 2ND FLOOR, JP AND DEVI JAMBUKESHWAR ARCADE, NO.66, MILLERS ROAD BANGALORE.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.SURESH P., ADVOCATE FOR R1: SRI. Y.P. VENKATATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:34787 MFA No. 7967 of 2018

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 18/07/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.5919/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-16), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.07.2018 passed by the X Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru in MVC No.5919/2016.

¶22

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 08.04.2016, the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.AP4-AA-6990 on Bengaluru-Kolar main road by observing all traffic rules carefully and cautiously. When he reached

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34787 MFA No. 7967 of 2018

¶24

near Chikkanahalli Gate, at that time, the driver of the Tata Ace Goods Tempo bearing Registration No.KA-526653 came from Chikkanahalli towards Hosakote in negligent manner and dashed against the claimant’s motorcycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶25

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 driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶26

Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition.

¶27

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:34787 MFA No. 7967 of 2018

¶29

the evidence. The claimant, in order to prove the case, examined himself as PW-1, another witness was examined as PW-2 and Dr.Rahul P was examined as PW-3, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P27. On behalf of the respondents, neither examined any witness nor exhibited any documents. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,71,500/along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶30

The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions:

¶31

a) Firstly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:34787 MFA No. 7967 of 2018

¶33

a period of 81 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. The doctor advised him to rest for nine months. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment. But the Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the head of ‘loss of income during the laid up period’ and the compensation awarded under the heads of ‘loss of amenities’ and ‘pain and suffering’ are also on lower side.

¶34

With the above contentions, learned counsel for the appellant sought to allow the appeal.

¶35

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following countercontentions:

¶36

a) Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he did not receive half of his salary for nine months, Ex.P12 indicates that until January 2017, he was on ESI leave. Under the provisions of the ESI Act, he is entitled to receive his salary. Therefore, the Tribunal correctly did not

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:34787 MFA No. 7967 of 2018

¶38

award any compensation under the head of 'loss of income during the laid-up period'.

¶39

b) Secondly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not warrant interference.

¶40

c) Lastly, in light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others –vVenkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. on the compensation amount appears excessive.

¶41

With the above contentions, learned counsel for the Insurance Company sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:34787 MFA No. 7967 of 2018

¶44

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 08.04.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶45

The Tribunal considering the material available on record, has rightly assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.13,750/-.

¶46

As per Wound Certificate, the claimant has sustained

¶47

injuries in the right leg with active bleeding, abrasions in right elbow, abrasion back of shoulder.

¶48

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 81 days. The doctor advised him to take rest for nine months. Considering the prolonged pain during treatment as well as the permanent disability certified by the doctor, I am inclined to award the compensation of Rs.41,250/- (Rs.13,750*3 months)

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:34787 MFA No. 7967 of 2018

¶50

under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’. The compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of ‘physical disablement’ has to be enhanced to Rs.75,000/- and the compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded under the head of 'loss of amenities'

¶51

has to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/- .

¶52

13. Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation

¶53

awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶54

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:

¶55

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	70,000	70,000
Medical expenses	1,07,233	1,07,233
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	82,000	82,000
Loss of income during	0	41,250

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:34787 MFA No. 7967 of 2018

¶58

laid up period
Loss of amenities	30,000	50,000
Physical disablement	50,000	75,000
Total	3,39,233	4,25,483
Less 20% contributory negligence on the part of claimant	67,847	85,097
Total	2,71,386	3,40,386
Rounded off	2,71,500	3,40,500

¶59

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶62

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,40,500/-.

¶63

d) Following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘MS.JOYEETA BOSE’ (supra) , the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6%

¶64

per annum.

¶65

e) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest

¶66

10 -

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:34787 MFA No. 7967 of 2018

¶68

from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from

¶69

the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶70

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶71

HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Sri. K v. Reddappa @ Reddyappa K v Vs Sri. Byregowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. K v. Reddappa @ Reddyappa K v Vs Sri. Byregowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Vishalakshi Kathari @ Vishalakshmi Yankanchi Vs Mr Sangamesh Yankanchi

Sri Siddaraju Vs Sri Saif Khan

Punith Kumar Vs United India Insurance Company Limited

Sri Devarajaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mahaboobhi Vs Ranganatha G. R.

Mahesh Shetty Vs Nagesh v