Kanthesh M Vs M/S Gcs Crushers

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:11621 MFA No. 1531 of 2024

¶2

1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1531 OF 2024 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KANTHESH M. S/O.LATE MUKAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT DYAVINAKERE VILLAGE MANDAGHATTA POST SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶8

PERMANENTLY R/AT AGARADAHALLI BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI SHRIPAD V.SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

M/S.GCS CRUSHERS SHOP NO.1, NO.1/2 FIRST FLOOR, VIDYASAGAR THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD OPP. TO ICICI BANK KYALASANAHALLI BENGALURU-560 077

¶14

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. MOTOR TP CLAIMS HUB NO.92, II FLOOR MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI SHARANAPPA GOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED V/O.DATED 28.08.2024)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11621 MFA No. 1531 of 2024

¶18

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.09.2023 PASSED IN MVC.NO.5549/2021 BY THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-1).

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 20.09.2023 passed in MVC.No.5549/2021 by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Principal MACT, Bengaluru (for short ‘the tribunal’). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the tribunal.

¶23

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal.

¶24

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶25

On 02.08.2021, the claimant was walking on Lakshmi

¶26

Talkies road towards Shubhamangala Kalyana Mantapa by taking proper care and caution and while crossing the

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11621 MFA No. 1531 of 2024

¶28

road, the driver of a Tipper vehicle bearing registration No.KA-50-A-8030 suddenly took a turn towards right with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. Due to which, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries.

¶29

3.1 Due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident and financial expenditure meted out for treatment, the claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation from the owner and the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle.

¶30

3.2 On service of notice, respondent No.1 did not appear and remained ex parte . Respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the claim of the claimant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶31

3.3 On the basis of materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, the tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.4,93,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum and directed respondent No.2-Insurance

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11621 MFA No. 1531 of 2024

¶33

Company to deposit the compensation amount within three months.

¶34

3.4 Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before this Court.

¶35

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel

¶36

for claimant that the tribunal has committed an error in not taking the proper income of the claimant for awarding compensation and the tribunal has also erred in not assessing the disability in terms of the opinion expressed by the Doctor i.e. PW.2. Learned counsel further contends that when the Doctor, who is an expert, is examined as PW.2 and opined the disability at 49% to the lower limbs and disability at 16% to the whole body, the tribunal ought to have taken the disability at 16% rather than reducing it to 12%, without there being any contra material placed before the tribunal. It is also contended that the income is to be taken at Rs.15,000/- per month as per the notional income chart of the Legal Services Authority for the accident of the year 2021, whereas the

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11621 MFA No. 1531 of 2024

¶38

tribunal has taken the income at Rs.12,500/-, which is erroneous, so also, the compensation awarded under other heads requires to be enhanced, which is consequent upon the enhancement of the income.

¶39

Per contra , learned counsel for Insurance

¶40

Company sustains the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal, by contending that there is no flaw, irregularity arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned judgement and award. He further contends that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable, so also, the disability assessed by the tribunal at 12% is justified as the fractures are united, which do not call for interference. On these grounds, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶41

I have heard learned counsel for appellantclaimant and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company and perused impugned judgement and award and the documents placed on record.

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11621 MFA No. 1531 of 2024

¶43

The occurrence of accident, involvement of vehicle and injuries sustained by the claimant in the Road Traffic Accident are proved and established by production of Exs.P1 to P18. The same is not questioned or challenged by the driver of the offending vehicle. The policy being in force is also admitted.

¶44

Now coming to the question of age, avocation, income, disability, appropriate multiplier for awarding compensation, it is seen the claimant was aged 29 years as on date of occurrence of accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable is '17', which is correctly taken by the tribunal. The income assessed by the tribunal is Rs.12,500/- per month, whereas the notional income chart of the Legal Services Authority for the accident of the year 2021 prescribes Rs.15,000/- per month. Hence, the income is taken at Rs.15,000/- per month.

¶45

The Doctor, who was examined as PW.2, opined

¶46

the disability at 49% to the lower limbs and disability at 16% to the whole body, the tribunal ought to have taken

¶47

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11621 MFA No. 1531 of 2024

¶48

the disability at 16% rather than reducing it to 12%, without there being any contra material placed before the tribunal. However, the tribunal may not be right in reducing the disability at 12%. Therefore, the disability is retained at 16% as opined by PW.2-Doctor. Hence, the claimant is entitled to Rs.4,89,600/- (Rs.15,000/- x 12 x 17 x 16%) towards loss of future earning due to disability as against Rs.3,06,000/-.

¶49

The tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and agony, Rs.40,000/towards medical expenses including conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges and Rs.60,000/towards unhappiness and loss of amenities, which do not call for interference and the same are retained.

¶50

The tribunal awarded Rs.37,500/- towards loss of income during laid up period. However, in view of this Court enhancing the income and the claimant would require atleast three months period to recuperate and get back to his normal day to day activities, the claimant is

¶51

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11621 MFA No. 1531 of 2024

¶52

entitled to Rs.45,000/- (Rs.15,000/- x 3) under this head.

¶53

In view of the above, the claimant would be

¶54

entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,84,600/- as against Rs.4,93,500/- awarded by the tribunal, as mentioned in the table below:

¶55

Sl.No.	Head of compensation	Amount of compensation awarded
1.	Pain and agony	50,000-00
2.	Medical expenses including conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges	40,000-00
3.	Loss of income during laid up period	45,000-00
4.	Loss of future earning due to disability	4,89,600-00
5.	Unhappiness and loss of amenities	60,000-00
	TOTAL	6,84,600-00

¶56

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶57

O R D E R

¶58

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;

¶59

ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 20.09.2023 passed in MVC.No.5549/2021 by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Principal MACT, Bengaluru, is modified;

¶60

9 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:11621 MFA No. 1531 of 2024

¶62

iii) The appellant-claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,84,600/- as against Rs.4,93,500/- awarded by the tribunal along with interest at 6% per annum;

¶63

iv) The respondent-Insurance Company shall pay the balance amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶64

v) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant-claimant as per the terms of the tribunal by electronic transfer to the claimant upon furnishing the required bank details/upon proper identification;

¶65

vi) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact;

¶66

vii) Registry is directed to transmit the original records, if any, to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith.

¶67

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶68

LB

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58

Kanthesh M v. M/S Gcs Crushers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanthesh M v. M/S Gcs Crushers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karan Chandrashekar Vs Smt.Divya K.C

Mrs.R Lavanya Vs Mr. B v Satish

Smt. Akshata Kattimani Vs Sri. Shreyas Samraksh J

Mr. Albert Vs Mr. Alok Kashyap

Sri R Hanumantha Vs Sri J Sridhar

Smt. Nirmala B B Vs Sri. Praveen P B