Karnataka High Court
Mr.Sukumar Achary vs Mr.Laxman Shetty on 21 January, 2021
Author: Alok Aradhe Rangaswamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
M.F.A. NO.8716 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MR. SUKUMAR ACHARY
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
S/O DAMODHAR ACHARI
R/AT KOLEKAODU
MUDOOR VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK
PIN - 576 262.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANDESH SHETTY T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. LAXMAN SHETTY
S/O VENKAPPA SHETTY
R/AT THAPSE GUDDE HOUSE
MUDOOR VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK
PIN - 576 262.
2. RELIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.
MAXIMUS COMMERCIAL
COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR
LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD
2
HAMPANAKATTE
MANGALURU - 575 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.S.LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS F+ILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.06.2017, PASSED IN
MVC NO.525/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, (SITTING AT
KUNDAPURA), KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
NATARAJ RANGASWAMY, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the claimant seeking
enhancement of the compensation awarded by the MACT,
Udupi (Sitting at Kundapura), Kundapura (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Tribunal'), in M.V.C.No.525/2014 in terms of the
judgment and award dated 19.06.2017.
2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, it is
taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned
counsel for the parties.
3. The claim petition filed under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 discloses that the claimant
suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on 31.12.2013
which involved an auto rickshaw bearing registration
No.KA-20C-9064. the claimant suffered blunt injuries on
his abdomen as per the Wound Certificate issued by K.M.C.
Hospital, Manipal. The claimant claimed that he was an
agriculturist and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month
and due to the disability he was not able to do any work.
Hence, he claimed compensation of a sum of
Rs.20,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the auto
rickshaw referred above.
4. The insurer of the auto rickshaw denied the
accident and also claimed that the driver did not possess a
license to drive the auto rickshaw. The claimant was
examined as PW.1 and he marked documents Ex.P1 to P13
while the insurer marked Exs.R1 to R3 by consent. The
Tribunal held that the accident was due to the negligence
on the part of the auth rickshaw. Insofar as claim for
compensation is concerned, it only awarded compensation
towards the pain and suffering and medical expenses as
well as a sum of Rs.1,860/- towards 'loss of earning during
treatment'. Since, the claimant did not examined the
Doctor who treated him nor furnished the certificate of
disability. Hence, the Tribunal was at loss to determine the
loss of earning capacity due to disability. The Tribunal
therefore awarded the following compensation:
Sl. Heads under which Amount in
No. compensation awarded Rupees
1 Injury, pain and sufferings 50,000/-
2 Medical expenses 33,480/-
3 Loss of earning during treatment 1,860/-
Conveyance, nourishment and
4 8,000/-
attendant charges
Total 93,340/-
5. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation, the claimant is in appeal and contends that
the Tribunal ought to have awarded adequate
compensation having regard to the nature of injuries and
the period of treatment.
6. The learned counsel for the insurer on the
other hand contended that in the absence of any proof
regarding disability, the Tribunal was right in not granting
compensation for the 'loss of earning capacity',
alternatively, he claimed that the injury suffered by the
claimant were not serious and therefore, the compensation
of Rs.50,000/- towards 'pain and suffering' was adequate
and requested this Court not to interfere with the award.
7. It is seen that the insurer did not challenge the
finding regarding the negligence on the part of the driver
of the auth rickshaw. It is also not in dispute that the
claimant suffered injuries in the accident and that the
claimant was in patient at K.M.C. Hospital for seven days
between 01.01.2014 and 08.01.2014. In that view of the
matter, ends of justice would be met by awarding an
additional global compensation of Rs.15,000/-.
Consequently, this appeal is allowed and impugned
judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 19.06.2017 in
M.V.C.No.525/2014 is modified and the compensation is
enhanced by a sum of Rs.15,000/-. The insurer of the auto
rickshaw is liable to pay the interest at the rate of 6% per
annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of
claim petition till the date of realization.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
NR/-
