Claimant injured when a moped dashed against him sought enhancement; insurer challenged quantum and interest. The High Court affirmed negligence, reassessed disability at 30%, recomputed compensation to Rs.6,49,400, and scaled down interest from 9% to 6% following Joyeeta Bose.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:33787 MFA No. 9147 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 6183 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9147 OF 2018 (MV)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6183 OF 2018(MV) IN MFA 9147/2018
BETWEEN:
SRI. GOWRISHA S/O. CHIKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT CHIKKAHONNENAHALLI VILLAGE TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201.
PRESENTLY R/O SATHIGARAHALLI VILLAGE KATTAYA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT-573 201.
…APPELLANT
Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. CHETHAN B.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHANTHIGRAMA, HASSAN TALUK-573 201.
5TH FLOOR, M. G. ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 26.07.2024)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:07.05.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1320/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA 6183/2018 BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.28, SANITARY BUILDING 5TH FLOOR, M. G. ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:33787 MFA No. 9147 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 6183 of 2018
SHANTHIGRAMA, HASSAN TALUK-573116.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:07.05.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1320/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, AWARDING COMPENSATION WITH INTEREST 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
MFA No.9147/2018 is filed by the claimant and MFA No.6183/2018 is filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, (for short, ‘the Act’) being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 07.05.2018 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Court and Addl. MACT, Hassan (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.1320/2015. Since the challenge is to
the same judgment, both the appeals are clubbed
together, heard and common judgment is being passed.
denying the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No.1, despite service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.
Re.Negligence:
(i) Firstly, the claimant was crossing the road where there was no zebra crossing and met with an accident. Since he consumed alcohol, after looking at the vehicle, he lost balance and fell down while crossing the road and the accident occurred. The driver of the offending vehicle tried to avoid the accident. Since, suddenly, the claimant entered the road, he could not avoid the accident. Therefore, the claimant has also contributed to the accident. But the Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter.
Re.Quantum:
(ii) Secondly, even though the claimant has suffered head injury, he entered the witness box. The doctor has not assessed the disability as per the guidelines issued by the Medical Council, but only deposed that the claimant
has suffered 60% disability. The Tribunal erred in considering that the claimant has suffered 40% disability.
(iii) Thirdly, even though the claimant has claimed that he was earning Rs.8,000/- per month, no document has been produced to prove the same. The notional income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,500/- is on the higher side.
(iv) Fourthly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads is also on the higher side.
(v) Lastly, in light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others – v- Venkateshan.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.
With the above submissions, learned counsel for the Insurance Company sought to dismiss the appeal filed by
the claimant and to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance
Company.
has raised the following counter-contentions:
Re.Negligence:
(i) Firstly, the claimant was not crossing the road, but
he was walking on the side of the road, at that time, the rider of the motorcycle came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the claimant. Due to the impact, he fell down and suffered head injuries. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the rider of the moped is negligent in causing the accident.
Re.Quantum:
(ii) Secondly, the Tribunal erred in assuming the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.6,500/-, despite claiming that he earned Rs.8,000/- per month.
(iii) Thirdly, the claimant suffered head injury. Even when he entered the witness box, he was not in a position
to answer the questions put by the other side counsel and the same has been noticed by the Board. Therefore, the whole body disability assessed by the Tribunal at 40% is on the lower side.
(iv) Fourthly, since the claimant has suffered head injury and it affects his day today activities, the claimant is entitled for addition of future prospects.
(v) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to suffer with the disabilities throughout his life. Considering the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side and the Tribunal failed to award compensation for ‘loss of earning during laid up period’ and 'loss of amenities'.
With the above submissions, learned counsel for the claimant sought to allow the appeal filed by the claimant and to dismiss the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
Re.Neglignece:
manner and dashed against the claimant. The police have also filed charge sheet against the driver of the moped. Considering all these aspects the Tribunal has rightly held that the rider of the moped is negligent in causing the accident.
Re.Quantum:
the disability certificate issued by the doctor. Considering the wound certificate and the medical records, I am of the opinion that the whole body disability has to be taken as 30%.
compensation of Rs.24,000/- (Rs.8,000*3 months) under
the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.
NC: 2024:KHC:33787 MFA No. 9147 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 6183 of 2018
| Compensation under different Heads |
As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) |
As awarded by this Court (Rs.) |
|---|---|---|
| Pain and sufferings | 10,000 | 40,000 |
| Medical expenses | 16,000 | 16,000 |
| Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges |
11,000 | 11,000 |
| Loss of income during laid up period |
0 | 24,000 |
| Loss of amenities | 0 | 40,000 |
| Loss of future income | 5,62,000 | 5,18,400 |
| Total | 5,99,000 | 6,49,400 |
ORDER
(iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,49,400/- as against Rs.5,99,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
(iv) Following the judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of ‘MS.JOYEETA BOSE’ (supra) , the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. is scalled down to 6% p.a.
(v) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from
the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE
CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the moped rider was negligent and whether the claimant contributed to the accident.
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads required enhancement or reduction.
Whether the rate of interest at 9% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal was excessive.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others - v- Venkateshan.V and othersFollowed¶19
MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. Gowrisha S/o. Chikkaiah
Sri. Somashetty S/o. Nigashetty
The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
H.T. Narendra Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
