Mr. Karthik Shenoy vs The United India Insurance Co.Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 6353 Kant

                            1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

            M.F.A. NO.2911 OF 2014 (MV- I)

BETWEEN:

MR. KARTHIK SHENOY
S/O LATE MANEL RAMANANDA SHENOY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT 'KARTHIK KRUPA'
OPPOSITE ASHOKNAGAR POST OFFICE
KOTTARA, MANGALORE-575 006.
                                              ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GURUPRASAD B R, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
       VARANASI BUILDING, MISSION STREET
       BUNDER, MANGALORE
       REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

2.     MR. N NITHYANANDA POOJARY
       S/O MEMPA POOJARY
       ADULT, R/AT HAMBADA HOUSE
       NARAVI, BELTHANGADY TALUK
       D.K. DISTRCT.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. KISHORE KUMAR REDDY FOR Y. ARUNA
   ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. K SHASHIKANTH PRASAD
   FOR R2)
                          ----

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 08.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC
                                2




NO.681/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE
ANDMEMBER, MACT, MANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM   PETITION FOR  COMPENSATION AND   SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                             JUDGMENT

At the stage of admission itself, by consent of

both the counsels, the matter is taken up for hearing and

disposed of finally.

1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner challenging

the judgment and award passed by the Court of Principal

Senior Civil Judge and Member Mact, Mangalore, (for short

hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), in MVC No.681/2012

dated 08.10.2013, wherein the claim petition came to be

allowed in part by awarding compensation of Rs.1,80,200/-

with interest at 6% p.a.

2. The appellant/petitioner filed a petition before

the tribunal claiming compensation for the injuries

sustained by him in the accident which is occurred on

20.01.2012.

3. Brief case of the petitioner before the tribunal is

that on 20.01.2012 at about 8.35 a.m., when the petitioner

was riding motorcycle bearing Reg.No. KA-19-EA-73 on

Kottarachowki-Urva Store Road, at Kottara Junction,

Mangalore, the driver of the car No.KA-21-A-4498 drove

the same negligently, dashed the same to the motor cycle,

thereby caused accident, caused injuries to the petitioner.

He contended that due to the actionable negligence on the

part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the accident

occurred. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the tribunal

claiming compensation.

4. After service of notice, the 2nd respondent -

Insurance Company appeared and filed objections denying

the contents of the petition and contended that the liability

if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.

1st respondent remained absent.

5. After considering the pleadings and contentions

of the parties, the tribunal framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 20.0.2012 at about 8.35 a.m., at Kottara

Junction, Kottara Chowki-Urva Store Road, Mangalore, within the limits of Traffic West Police Station, in view of negligent use of a new Car No.KA 21 A 4498 an accident took place resulting in the injuries to the petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, at what rate? And from whom?

3. What order or award?"

6. Before the tribunal, the petitioner himself got

examined as PW.1, examined 3 witnesses as PW.2 to P.W.4

and got marked 61 documents and a X-ray at Ex.P1 to

P18. On behalf of respondents, insurance company

produced insurance policy which was got marked as Ex.R1.

7. After hearing the arguments, the tribunal

awarded compensation of Rs.1,80,200/- with interest at the

rate of 6% per annum. Being not satisfied with the

quantum of compensation, the petitioner has preferred this

appeal.

8. Heard Sri. Guruprasad.B.R., learned counsel for

appellant, Sri. Kishore Kumar Reddy for Sri/Smt. Y. Aruna,

learned counsel for 1st respondent No.1 and Sri. K.

Shashikanth Prasad, learned counsel for 2nd respondent.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly argued

that the tribunal has not awarded appropriate compensation

towards 'Attendant and Conveyance charges' though the

appellant is earsning a salary of Rs.17,324/-. Learned

counsel further argued that the compensation awarded by

the Tribunal towards 'Loss of income during treatment

period' is lesser than what is required. Further, the

tribunal has awarded very meager amount towards 'loss of

amenities, future unhappiness' in view of the nature of

injuries suffered by the claimant. Therefore, learned

counsel argued to modify the compensation awarded by the

tribunal and prays for enhancement of compensation.

10. Against this learned counsel for the insurance

company supported the impugned judgment and award and

the Tribunal has properly considered the evidence and the

compensation awarded is just and fair compensation and

the judgment and award needs no interference.

11. I have considered the arguments of learned

counsel for the parties, perused the appeal memo,

impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal and

also records placed before this Court.

12. It is evident that the appellant is working as a

Manager (Import and Export) Yojaka India Pvt. Ltd. It is

evident from the wound certificate that the appellant suffered

fracture of dislocation of left humerus. It is also evident that he

was inpatient for period of 14 days i.e. from 20.01.2012 to

02.02.2012.

13. On perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal, the

Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards pain and

suffering. In my opinion, the compensation awarded by the

tribunal towards pain and suffering is just and proper. The

compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards medicine and

hospital charges is also proper.

14. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal

towards 'Nourishment charges and attendant and

conveyance' is only Rs.4,000/- which needs to be enhanced

by Rs.15,000/- and towards 'loss of amenities, future

unhappiness, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.22,000/-. The

wound certificate shows that the appellant suffered fracture

dislocation of left humerus which creates unhappiness

throughout his life and it needs to be enhanced by

Rs.10,000/-. Towards 'loss of income during treatment

period', the compensation awarded is Rs.75,000/-. It is

evident from para No.28 of the impugned judgment, the

appellant is earning Rs.17,324/- as gross salary. It is also

evident that the appellant remained absent for duties from

20.01.2012 to 10.07.2012. In my opinion, the

compensation towards 'loss of income during treatment

period' to be enhanced to Rs.95,000/- taking into

consideration the period of leave applied.

15. In the result, considering the nature of injuries,

evidence of the appellant, the compensation awarded by

the tribunal need to be re-judged and the compensation

awarded by the tribunal recalculated under the different

heads of compensation as under:

Sl. Particulars Compensation Compensation No. awarded by the re- tribunal determined by this court

1. Towards pain and Rs.35,000/- Rs.35,000/- suffering

2. Towards medicine and Rs.44,200/- Rs.44,200/- hospital charges

3. Towards loss of Rs.75,000/- Rs.95,000/- earning during treatment period

4. Towards nourishment, Rs. 4,000/- Rs.15,000/- attendant and conveyance

5. Loss of amenities, Rs.22,000/- Rs.32,000/- future unhappiness

Total Rs. 1,80,200/- Rs.2,21,200/-

16. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is partly allowed;

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by Principal Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Mangalore, having been modified, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,21,200/- (Rupees Two lakh twenty one thousand two hundred only).

(iii) The other conditions of the tribunal regarding apportionment and interest remained unaltered.

(iv) The 2nd respondent shall deposits the compensation amount within six weeks from

the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(v) Regarding rate of interest and other order passed by the tribunal is kept in tact.

(v) Costs made easy.

(vi) Sent back the records to the tribunal.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SSD