Sri B H Raju, S/O Hanumaiah Vs Sri Badrappa S/O Channaveerappa

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:25108 MFA No. 6902 of 2014

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6902 OF 2014 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI B H RAJU, S/O HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, PERMANENT R/O BALEKATTE HALGERE LPOST, AMRATHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. AND NOW R/AT NO.6, C/O NARASEGOWDA, 1ST FLOOR, NAGADEVANAHALLI, GNANABHARATHI POST, BANGALORE-560056.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. BABU M., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed 1. SRI BADRAPPA, S/O CHANNAVEERAPPA by GURURAJ D MAKAVALLI VILLAGE, Location: High MAREGOWDANAHALLI POST Court of Karnataka HOLENARASIPURA TLUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573203.

¶13

THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 1ST FLOOR, KRUTHIKA ANCED MPL., SAS. NO.329, 331, NEAR N.R. CIRCLE, H.N. PURA ROAD, HASSAN-573201.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.S.LINGARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; VIDE ORDER DATED:04.01.2017, NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25108 MFA No. 6902 of 2014

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:5.6.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.7289/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 24TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 22^ND ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the petitioner against the judgment and award dated 05.06.2012, passed by the MACT and XXIV Additional Small Causes Court, Bangalore (for short “ the tribunal ”), in MVC No.7289/2010, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶23

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Tribunal.

¶24

The brief facts of the case before the Tribunal are as under that on 12.07.2010, at around 11:30 p.m., the petitioner met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Lorry bearing registration No.KA-41-9779 by its driver. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries. He took

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:25108 MFA No. 6902 of 2014

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

treatment as inpatient in CHC Hospital, Kunigal and Dr.K.Narsimaiah Hospital, Tumkur for 8 days. He spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses. He was running a Dhaba and earning Rs.50,000/- per month. Due to injuries sustained in the accident, he suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

¶29

The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Both have filed their respective written statement denying the contents of the claim petition. Respondent No.1 contended that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and that the policy of insurance was in force as on the date of the accident. In the event, if claim petition is allowed, the respondent No.2 - Insurer is liable to pay the compensation. With these reasons, he prayed to dismiss the claim petition against the respondent No1.

¶30

The respondent No.2 - Insurer in its written statement denied the contents of the claim petition and denied the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and its

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25108 MFA No. 6902 of 2014

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

liability to pay the compensation. With these reasons, it prayed

¶34

for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶35

From the rival contentions of the parties, the

¶36

Tribunal framed necessary issues and recorded the evidence. The petitioner examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P27. The respondents have not led any evidence.

¶37

The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, awarded following amount of compensation:

¶38

Sl.No	Heads	Amount
1.	Pain and sufferings	Rs.65,000/-
2.	Medical expenses	Rs.1,26,000/-
3.	Loss of income during the period of treatment	Rs.10,500/-
4.	Towards Disability	Rs.30,000/-
5.	Loss of amenities	Rs.10,000/-
	Total	Rs.2,41,500/-

¶39

The petitioner being dissatisfied with the award

¶40

passed by the Tribunal, has filed present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:25108 MFA No. 6902 of 2014

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

9. I have heard the arguments and perused the

¶45

materials available on record.

¶46

As per the medical record as well as the evidence of PW-2, the petitioner has suffered following injuries:

¶47

i. Fracture right clavicle.

¶48

ii. Fracture right 3, 4 ribs.

¶49

iii. Blunt Abdomenal Trauma.

¶50

Re suturing in Hameio Peritoneal about 2 - 2.5 Liters in the peritoneal cavity.

¶51

iv. Haematoma Mesocolon.

¶52

v. Middle Colic Artery Tear.

¶53

vi. Serosaltear of transverse colon.

¶54

vii. Haemo Throax.

¶55

The evidence of PW-2 was also corroborated by

¶56

medical records, that is Ex.P6 i.e. X-rays and Scanning films. The petitioner underwent treatment as an inpatient for 8 days in the said hospital i.e. from 13.07.2010 to 20.07.2010, during which he underwent surgeries. Considering the evidence of PW2, as rightly held by the Tribunal, the petitioner had not suffered from any permanent functional disability, although he might have suffered physical disability. The petitioner contended that he was earning Rs.50,000/- per month by running a Dhaba. If that was the case, then he would be an

¶57

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25108 MFA No. 6902 of 2014

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

income tax assessee as his income would have exceeded Rs.6,00,000/- per annum. However, he did not produce any documents evidencing the submission of income tax returns to the concerned department. Hence, the Tribunal has considered the income of petitioner as Rs.3,500/- per month, which is on lower side. Following the chart of notional income prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income of the petitioner is taken at Rs.5,500/- per month. Considering the medical records as well as the evidence of PWs-1 and 2, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate, which requires enhancement. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for following amount of

¶60

compensation.

¶61

Sl.No	Heads	Amount
1.	Pain and sufferings	Rs.90,000/-
2.	Medical expenses	Rs.1,26,000/-
3.	Loss of income during laid up period(5,500/- X 3)	Rs.16,500/-
4.	Loss of amenities	Rs.75,000/-
5.	Attendant, special diet and conveyance charges	Rs.25,000/-
	Total	Rs.3,32,500/-
Less:
Com	pensation awarded by the Tribunal Enhancement	Rs.2,41,500/- Rs.91,000/-

¶62

7 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:25108 MFA No. 6902 of 2014

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Undisputedly, respondents are liable to pay the

¶66

compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶67

Petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.91,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of petition till its realization.

¶68

The appeal was filed after delay of 769 days and while allowing the said application, this Court ordered that in the event of enhancement of compensation, the petitioner is not entitled for the interest on the delayed period.

¶69

For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

i) The appeal is partly allowed .

¶72

ii) The impugned the judgment and award dated 05.06.2012, passed in MVC No. 7289/2010 by the MACT and XXIV Additional Small Causes Court, Bangalore, stands modified.

¶73