Shekar Tukaram Nadoni, Vs Shrikant Ravanasidda Patil

SHRI. SHRIKANT RAVANASIDDA PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: LAXMI NAGAR, BHAGAT PLOT, PANCHASHEEL NAGAR, SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA STATE (OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE NO. MH-10/AA-7176)

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

(NOTICE TO SOLE RESPONDENT IS SERVED)

¶13

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:31.07.2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1892/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, ATHANI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶16

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

¶17

CORAM:

¶18

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13022 MFA No. 20135 of 2013

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

¶23

This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) by the claimant, challenging the judgment and award dated 31.07.2012 passed in MVC No.1892/2011 by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Athani.

¶24

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:

¶25

On 09.05.2011, the petitioner, after purchasing

¶26

the vegetables at the vegetable market , Athani was proceeding towards his house by walk. At about 8.00 p.m., when the petitioner was so proceeding, near the spot of the accident, a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.MH-10/AA - 07176 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, at a high speed, dashed to the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, claiming

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13022 MFA No. 20135 of 2013

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the appeal.

¶30

A notice was issued to the owner-cum-rider of the motorcycle. Despite the service, he remained unrepresented and was placed ex parte.

¶31

The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as P.W.1, examined the doctor as P.W.2, and marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12. The Tribunal after recording evidence, framed the relevant points. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs vide judgment dated 31.07.2012, and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,91,080/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realisation. It is held that the respondent being the owner-cum-rider of the motorcycle is liable to pay the compensation with interest, and directed him to deposit the compensation amount.

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13022 MFA No. 20135 of 2013

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The petitioner, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC No.1892/2011, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal.

¶35

A notice was issued to the respondent. Despite

¶36

the service of notice, he remained unrepresented.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was aged about 50 years old as of the date of the accident, and the accident occurred in 2011. The Tribunal should have taken the notional income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka Legal Service Authority, i.e., Rs.6,000/-, wherein the Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.4,000/- which is on the lower side. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, and accordingly, prays to allow the appeal.

¶39

Perused the records and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13022 MFA No. 20135 of 2013

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation.

¶43

There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident. The petitioner has produced a charge sheet marked as Ex.P5, which discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle. The Tribunal, considering Ex.P5 has rightly recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle.

¶44

Reg. Quantum of compensation:

¶45

It is contended that the petitioner was doing coolie work and used to earn Rs.6,000/- p.m. To prove his income, the petitioner has not produced any income proof. The accident occurred in 2011. As per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income of the petitioner is taken at Rs.6,000/- p.m. The petitioner was about 50 years old as of the date of the

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13022 MFA No. 20135 of 2013

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

accident. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age

¶49

group of the petitioner is ‘13’. To prove the disability, the petitioner examined the doctor as P.W.2, and assessed the disability at 50% to the whole body. The Tribunal has assessed the permanent disability to the whole body at 17%, which is just and proper.

¶50

14. Thus, this court, on re-assessment of the entire

¶51

evidence on record, awards the following compensation:

¶52

Sl.		Compensation a	warded in Rs.
No.	Heads of compensation	By the Tribunal	By this Court
3	Painand suffering	35,000/-	50,000/-
4	Loss of income during the laid up period	20,000/-	30,000/- (Rs.6,000 x 5)
5	Loss of future earning due to disability	1,06,080/-	1,59,120/- (Rs.6,000/- x12x13x17%)
	Medical expenses and incidental expenses	1,20,000/-	1,20,000/-
	Conveyance charges	--	15,000/-
7	Loss of amenities	10,000/-	25,000/-
	Total :	2,91,080/-	3,99,120/-
	Enhanced	compensation	1,08,040/-

¶53

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to

¶54

pass the following order:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

(i) The Appeal is allowed in part.

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13022 MFA No. 20135 of 2013

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

(ii) The impugned judgment and the award passed by the Tribunal is hereby, modified.

¶61

(iii) The petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,99,120/- as against Rs.2,91,080/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation of the amount. The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,08,040/-.

¶62

(iv) The respondent/owner cum rider is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶63

(v) The Tribunal records, and the amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.

¶64

Sd/(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE

¶65

MBS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Shekar Tukaram Nadoni, v. Shrikant Ravanasidda Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shekar Tukaram Nadoni, v. Shrikant Ravanasidda Patil

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

Nabi Sab Hajaratsab Mulla Vs Girimalla Basappa Awati

M/S Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd, Vs Kalagouda S/O Devagouda Patil

The Managing Director and Its Self Insurance Fund, Vs Shivanand Sangappa Ojag @ Ojaganavar

Sachin @ Shashikumar Vs Parvati W/O Babu

The Divisional Manager, Vs v Venkatesh S/O v. Thimappa

New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs Ramabai @ Manjula W/O Shantaram Revankar