Partly allowed

Sri P S Jaganath v. Sri S S Shakuni Gowda

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2025MFA/4171/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed appeals by a claimant seeking enhanced compensation and by an insurer challenging liability in a motor accident case. The Court enhanced compensation from Rs.3,66,314/- to Rs.6,38,564/- by adding loss of future earnings and laid-up period income. It held the insurer liable under the 'pay and recover' principle, citing Mukund Dewangan.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and award modified; compensation enhanced to Rs.6,38,564/- plus 6% interest; insurer directed to deposit amount and recover from owner.

Sri P S Jaganath Vs Sri S S Shakuni Gowda — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:21960-DB MFA No. 4171 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 8180 of 2013

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4171 OF 2015 (MV-I)

¶9

C/W

¶10

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8180 OF 2013 (MV-I)

¶11

IN MFA No. 4171/2015

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

SRI P S JAGANATH S/O SRI. P.G. SEETHARAM, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT VENKATADRI NILAYA, KATARAKOLLI, PONNAMPET TOWN, VIRAJPET TLUK, S.KODAGU.

¶14

&APPELLANT

¶15

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

(BY SRI. S SUBRAMANYA., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI S S SHAKUNI GOWDA, S/O SRI. SOMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/T NO.1624/3, RAGHAVENDRA EXTENSION, MYSORE.

¶19

THE MANAGER M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.2911, SUNDAR ARCADE,

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:21960-DB MFA No. 4171 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 8180 of 2013

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

OPPOSITE SUBASH BUS STAND, B.N.ROAD, MYSORE-570 001.

¶24

&RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY., ADV. FOR R2, V/O DATED: 13/06/2023 APPEAL AGAINST R1 DISMISSED.)

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 15.05.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.73/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) & MACT, AT VIRAJPET, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶27

IN MFA NO. 8180/2013

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.2911, SUNDAR ARCADE, OPP: SUBASH BUS STAND, B. N. ROAD, MYSORE-570001, NOW REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 5^TH & 6^TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶30

...APPELLANT

¶31

(BY SRI. A N KRISHNASWAMY., ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

P S JAGANATH S/O P G SEETHARAM NOW AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/A VENKATADRI NILAYA

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:21960-DB MFA No. 4171 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 8180 of 2013

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

KATARAKOLLI, PONNAMPET TOWN, VIRAJPET TALUK, S. KODAGU.

¶38

S S SHAKUNI GOWDA

¶39

S/O SOMEGOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/A NO.1624/3, RAGHAVENDRA EXTENSION, MYSORE-570001.

¶40

...RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI. S. SUBRAMANYA, ADV. FOR R1, R2 SERVED.)

¶42

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 15.05.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.73/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN), MACT, VIRAJPET, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.3,66,314/- WITH INTEREST OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶43

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

¶44

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶45

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶46

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)

¶47

These appeals are against the Judgment and award dated

¶48

15^th May 2013 passed in MVC No.73 of 2012 by the City Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Virajpet (for short hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal").

¶49

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21960-DB MFA No. 4171 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 8180 of 2013

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

MFA No.4171 of 2015 is preferred by claimant seeking enhancement in compensation; and MFA No.8180 of 2013 is preferred by the Insurance Company, challenging the quantum as well as liability.

¶52

Sri Subramanya, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant would submit that the Tribunal had not taken into consideration the facts and circumstances while awarding the compensation. He would submit that the Tribunal has awarded meagre compensation under all heads and hence sought for enhancement in the compensation by allowing the appeal.

¶53

Sri A.N. Krishnaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company in MFA No.8180 of 2013, submits that the Tribunal committed a serious error in not noticing the fact that the accident occurred on 23^rd May 2011, and as on the date of accident, there existed no renewal of transport endorsement to drive a goods vehicle and under this circumstance, saddling of liability on the appellant is erroneous and the finding of Tribunal in this regard is contrary to documents available on record. Accordingly, he sought for

¶54

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21960-DB MFA No. 4171 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 8180 of 2013

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

allowing the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. In support of the office submissions, he places reliance on the Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. ANGAD KOL AND OTHERS reported in (2000)9 ACJ 1411 SC and in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. KUSUM RAI AND OTHERS reported in (2000)6 ACJ 1336 SC.

¶57

Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the

¶58

parties, the following points would arise for our consideration:

¶59

1. Whether the claimant has made out grounds for

¶60

enhancing the compensation?

¶61

2. Whether the appellant-Insurance company has made out grounds to interfere with the impugned Judgment and award?

¶62

Regarding point No.1 :

¶63

We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident that took place on 23^rd May

¶64

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21960-DB MFA No. 4171 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 8180 of 2013

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

2011. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,66,314/with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

¶67

Learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of future earning due to disability. It is evident from the medical records that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. He took treatment in Basappa Memorial Hospital, Mysore for a period of 21 days and had also taken treatment as an outpatient for nearly six months. Exhibit P4 is the wound certificate of the injured. The same reveals that the claimant has sustained the following injuries:

¶68

" 1. Lacerated wound over the medial border of the right palm size 3" x 1/8" skin deep;

¶69

2. Right thigh swollen, painful, movements restricted. "

¶70

Doctor has opined that injury No.2 is grievous in nature.

¶71

8. Exhibit P15 is the discharge summary issued by Basappa Memorial hospital which reveals that the petitioner was admitted to hospital on 24^th May 2011 and was discharged on

¶72

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:21960-DB MFA No. 4171 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 8180 of 2013

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

11^th June 2011. The discharge summary also reveals that the

¶76

claimant-injured has sustained following injuries:

¶77

" 1.Communited fracture middle third shaft - right femur;

¶78

2. Fracture inter-condylar eminence right tibia;

¶79

3. Fracture lateral condyle of the right tibia. "

¶80

T he claimant has also undergone operation ORIF with

¶81

IMIL nailing right femur under GA on 02^nd June, 2011 and IMIL nailing of tibia under SAB on 07^th June, 2011. X-ray film and medical bills are also produced. Dr Ajay Hegde, Orthopaedic surgeon, who has treated the injured examined through Court Commissioner, has deposed that the claimant met with an accident on 23^rd May 2011, wherein he has sustained injuries to right thigh and right leg followed by pain. He was treated at Gopala Gowda Hospital and was referred to Basappa Memorial Hospital for further treatment. The patient underwent following treatment on 24^th May, 2011 for communited fracture of right femur shaft and fractured shaft of right tibia with tibia spine fracture. He was operated on 2^nd June 2011 for leg femur fracture with IMIL. Again, he was

¶82

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:21960-DB MFA No. 4171 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 8180 of 2013

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

operated on 7^th June, 2011 for leg fracture with IMIL, and he was discharged on 11^th June, 2011 with an advice for regular follow-up. He came for regular follow-up and was last seen on 9^th April 2013. The injured complained of pain in the right thigh and right knee and inability to squat. On examination, he has surgical scar over the right hip, right thigh, right knee and right leg. Range of motion in the right knee is terminally restricted by 10% of flexion, right hip, range of motion of adduction is terminally restricted to 20 degree, hip internal and external rotation terminally restricted to 20 degree as measured by a Goniometer. Right quadriceps, muscle power is grade 4, measured comparatively and clinically X-ray was taken. Both fracture femur and fracture fibia and tibula united. Doctor advised implant (in two) and further advised implant removal of both femur and tibial nail, which surgery would cost around Rs.35,000/-. The claimant had permanent physical disability of 15% in relation to the right lower limb and physical disability towards knee is around 15% and towards hip is around 25%. Considering this evidence, the Tribunal has taken disability to the whole body at 18%. Considering the evidence of PWs1 & 2 and medical evidence, we are also of the view that the

¶85

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:21960-DB MFA No. 4171 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 8180 of 2013

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

assessment arrived by the Tribunal at 18% to the whole body, is just and proper. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of future earning. In the absence of any document to prove the income, in view of the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accidents of the year 2011, Rs.6,500/- per month is to be taken as notional income and the same is taken. It is not in dispute that petitioner was aged 22 as on the date of accident. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in (2009)6 SCC 121, appropriate multiplier would be 18. Accordingly, the loss of future income comes to Rs.2,52,720/- (Rs.6,500/- x 12 x 18 x 18%). Considering the nature of injury suffered by the claimant, we award an amount of Rs.19,500/- under the head loss of income during laid-up period.

¶88

10. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal and other heads are just and proper and are left undisturbed. Accordingly, the revised compensation to which the claimant is entitled is as follows:

¶89

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:21960-DB MFA No. 4171 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 8180 of 2013

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

Sl.No.	Head	Amount in (Rs.)
1.	Towards pain and agony	40,000.00
2.	Towards loss of future happiness and amenities	70,000.00
3.	Towards Medical expenses	2,23,314.00
4.	Towards food, nourishment and attendant charges	3,000.00
5.	Towards Conveyance charges	10,000.00
6.	Towards future medical expenses	20,000.00
7.	Towards of future earning	2,52,750.00
8.	Towards loss of earning during laid up period	19,500.00
	Total	6,38,564.00

¶92

Accordingly we answer point No.1 partly in the

¶93

affirmative.

¶94

Regarding Point No.2 :

¶95

As regards liability of the insurance company is concerned, Insurance company has produced documents Exhibits R1 to R3. Exhibit R1 is the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle which shows that licensee is authorised to drive LMV, MGV and HGV and the same is renewed from time to time till 31^st July 2016. There is no renewal of transport endorsement to drive the goods carriage. Exhibit R3 reveals that the vehicle permit is from 30^th September, 2011 to 29^th September, 2016. Therefore, in view of the decision of Hon'ble

¶96

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:21960-DB MFA No. 4171 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 8180 of 2013

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

Supreme Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668, it is just and proper to fasten liability on insurance company with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle under the principle of "pay and recover". Accordingly, we answer the point No.2 also partly in the affirmative.

¶99

In the result we proceed to pass the following:

¶100

O R D E R

¶101

i) Both the appeals are allowed in part;

¶102

ii) The Judgment and award dated 15^th May 2013 passed in MVC No.73 of 2012 by the City Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Virajpet, is modified holding that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.6,38,564/- as against Rs.3,66,314/- awarded by the Tribunal;

¶103

iii) It is made clear that the enhanced compensation carries interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation;

¶104

12 -

¶105

NC: 2025:KHC:21960-DB MFA No. 4171 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 8180 of 2013

¶106

HC-KAR

¶107

iv) Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment;

¶108

v) Amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith;

¶109

vi) Upon deposit of the compensation amount, Insurance company is also at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle under the principle of "pay and recover";

¶110

vii) Apportionment and disbursement of the compensation amount shall be as per the award of the Tribunal;

¶111

viii) Registry to draw award accordingly.

¶112

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶113

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶114

lnn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Sri P S Jaganath v. Sri S S Shakuni Gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P S Jaganath v. Sri S S Shakuni Gowda

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

Shanthi Kumari P Vs Mr Jeevandas Adyanthaya

The State of Karnataka Vs Lakshmipathi

Kum Prema Vs Sri Javed @ Mohammed Zulfikar Pasha

Abhishek S M @ Abhishek Gowda Vs Kiran Kumar T

Syed Thousif Ahmed Vs H S Siddaraju

Sri Beeraiah @ Hosabeeraiah Vs Smt Renukamma