Ramesh Poojary Vs Bharathi Bhat

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:919-DB MFA No. 8556/2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8556/2018 (MV-I)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

RAMESH POOJARY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O SIDDA POOJARY, R/AT PADUKERE, KOTATHATTU VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY MS. PAYAL DECHAMMA C.V, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

BHARATHI BHAT AGE MAJOR, W/O RAGHAVENDRA BHAT, R/AT NEAR MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE, BANNANJE, UDUPI DISTRICT 576101.

¶15

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

PRAKASH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O VISHWANATH SHETTY, R/AT GOWRI NILAYA KOLAMBE AGRAHARA CHANTHRU BRAHMAVARA UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT 576213.

¶17

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD., KRISHNA COMPLEX, FLOOR NO.2, GB, PANTH ROAD UDUPI 576101 REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 10.8.2022 R2 SERVED)

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:919-DB MFA No. 8556/2018

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05/06/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.1000/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

¶27

The present appeal is filed by the claimant seeking for enhancement of the quantum of compensation challenging the judgment and award dated 5.6.2018 passed in MVC.No.1000/2016 by the Addl. District Judge and Additional MACT, Udupi (sitting at Kundapura) Kundapura¹ .

¶28

The parties will be referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶29

It is the case of the claimant in the claim petition that on 31.7.2016 while he was standing by the side of the road waiting for a bus, bus bearing No.KA-20/D.4898 came in

¶30

rash and negligent manner and hit him causing the accident, 1 Hereinafter referred as to ‘Tribunal”

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:919-DB MFA No. 8556/2018

¶32

wherein he suffered grievous injuries. Claiming compensation for the same, he filed claim petition in MVC No.1000/2016 arraying the owner, driver and insurer of the bus as respondents. The insurer of the bus entered appearance before the Tribunal and contested the claim proceedings.

¶33

The claimant examined himself as PW.1, the doctor was examined as PW.2 and the testimony of PW.3 was adduced with regard to the avocation of the claimant. Exs.P1 to P12 have been marked in evidence. The driver of the bus was examined as RW.1 and Exs.R1 to R3 have been marked in evidence. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 5.6.2018 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of `4,34,530/- together with interest at 6% pa., and held that respondent Nos.1 and 3 i.e., owner and insurer of the bus are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded. Being aggrieved and seeking for enhancement of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed by the claimant.

¶34

The findings of the Tribunal on negligence and liability are not challenged and the same have become final. Hence, only the question as to the adequacy of the

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:919-DB MFA No. 8556/2018

¶37

compensation awarded is being considered in the present appeal. The claimant was aged 35 years as on the date of the accident and he is stated to having a fishing boat and earning a monthly income of 20,000/-. However, no documents have been produced to prove his income. The Tribunal has notionally assessed the income of the claimant at 9,000/- pm. Having regard to the avocation of the claimant, wages and price index as on the date of the accident, the income of the claimant is notionally reassessed at `9,500/- pm.

¶38

It is forthcoming from the wound certificate (Ex.P3), disability certificate (Ex.P9) and the testimony of the doctor (PW.2) that the claimant has suffered fracture of the left tibia, distal phalanx fracture of the right foot first, second and third toes, fracture of the left ankle, left calcaneal fracture and other injuries. The claimant was treated as an inpatient for a total period of 27 days. The Tribunal has assessed the disability of the claimant at 7%, which is just and proper. Having regard to the age of the claimant as 35 years, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier 16, which is just and proper.

¶39

Keeping in mind the aforementioned, the compensation is reassessed as follows:

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:919-DB MFA No. 8556/2018

¶42

i. The loss of earning is reassessed at (9,500/x12x16x7/100) 1,27,680/as against `1,20,960/-

¶43

awarded by the Tribunal.

¶44

ii. Having regard to the number of injuries sustained, compensation towards injury, pain and suffering is awarded at 85,000/- as against 50,000/awarded by the Tribunal;

¶45

iii. With regard to the medical expenses, the Tribunal has calculated the same as per the actual bills and awarded a sum of 1,61,474/-, the same is just and proper and rounded off to 1,62,000/-;

¶46

iv. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of `30,000/towards future medical expenses as per the testimony of the doctor/PW.2, which is just and proper;

¶47

v. The period of treatment is assessed as four months and the loss of income during laid up period is reassessed as (9,500/-x4) 38,000/- as against `8,100/awarded by the Tribunal;

¶48

vi. Having regard to the period of treatment, it is just and proper to award a sum of `30,000/- towards

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:919-DB MFA No. 8556/2018

¶51

conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges as

¶52

against `10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal;

¶53

vii. Considering the nature of injuries and

¶54

resultant disability, it is just and proper to award a sum of `50,000/- as loss of amenities;

¶55

Accordingly, the total compensation under various

¶56

heads is re-assessed as follows:

¶57

Sl.No.	Heads	Amount awarded by the Tribunal (`)	Amount awarded by this Court (`)
1.	Injury, pain and suffering	50000.00	85000.00
2.	Medical expenses	161474.00	162000.00
3	Future medical expenses	30000.00	30000.00
4.	Loss of earning during treatment	8100.00	38000.00
5.	Loss ofbedrest	54000.00	0.00
6.	Loss of future earning capacity	120960.00	127680.00
7.	Conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges	10000.00	30000.00
8.	Loss ofamenities	0.00	50000.00
	Total	434534.00 Rounded off to 434530.00	522680.00

¶58

Hence, the claimant is entitled for a total

¶59

compensation of 5,22,680/- as against 4,34,534/- awarded by the Tribunal, ie., enhanced compensation of (5,22,680/- - 4,34,534/-) `88,150/- along with interest at 6% p.a.

¶60

7 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:919-DB MFA No. 8556/2018

¶62

10. In the result, the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 5.6.2018 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge and Additional MACT, Udupi (sitting at Kundapura), Kundapura, in MVC No.1000/2016 is modified as follows:

¶65

i) The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of `88,150/- with interest at 6% pa., from the date of petition till its realization;

¶66

ii) Respondent No.3 – Insurer shall deposit the aforesaid compensation before the Tribunal within four week from the date of the receipt of the copy of this judgment;

¶67

iii) On such deposit, the Tribunal shall digitally release the said amount to the claimant.

¶68

Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE

¶69

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶70

ND/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Ramesh Poojary v. Bharathi Bhat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Poojary v. Bharathi Bhat

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

K.R. Prasanna Vs Smt. Kalamma

Smt H P Akshatha Vs Sri B Siddappaji Swamy

Raghavendra Devadiga Vs Manjunatha

K C Nithyananda Vs K O Naveen

Smt Latharani Vs Sri v Jayaramu

Sri Prakash S B Vs Smt Vijayalakshmi