Sri Vivek N B vs Sri Mahesh C
2021 Latest Caselaw 142 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                         PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                            AND

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

                 M.F.A.No.7849/2018 (MV)

BETWEEN :

SRI VIVEK N.B.,
S/O LATE BHEEMARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/O NEELAKANTANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT
PRESENTLY R/AT KUVEMPU COLLEGE,
B.M.ROAD, CHANNAPATNA TOWN,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562160.
                                            ...APPELLANT

                    (BY SRI S.RAJU, ADV.)


AND :

1.      SRI MAHESH C.,
        S/O CHIKKEGOWDA,
        AGE MAJOR, R/AT NO.89/2,
        HANASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
        KAILANCHA HOBLI, K.P.DODDI POST,
        RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT-562160.

2.      CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL
        INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
        NO.9/1, NEAR HALASURU LAKE,
                               -2-

      HALASURU ROAD,
      BENGALURU-560042.
      REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.                  ...RESPONDENTS

           (BY SRI B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R-2;
  VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 12.07.2017 NOTICE TO R-1 IS
                   DISPENSED WITH.)


      THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT    AGAINST     THE    JUDGMENT      AND   AWARD    DATED
24.01.2018 PASSED IN MVC No.497/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR      CIVIL     JUDGE    &    JMFC,   ADDITIONAL      MACT,
CHANNAPATTANA,         RAMANAGARA,     PARTLY     ALLOWING      THE
CLAIM      PETITION    FOR     COMPENSATION       AND    SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment and

award dated 24.01.2018 passed in MVC No.497/2016

on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Addl.

MACT, Channapattana, Ramanagara ('Tribunal' for

short).

2. The claimant instituted the petition under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming

compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the

road traffic accident.

3. It was averred in the petition that on

27.09.2016 at about 8.00 p.m. when the claimant was

proceeding in the motorcycle bearing registration

No.KA-11-Q-1834 as a pillion with his friend who was

riding the motorcycle following the traffic rules, the

speeding Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-42-A-

4634 (offending vehicle) came from opposite direction in

a rash and negligent manner crashed against the

motorcycle and caused accident, as a result of which

the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries.

He has incurred huge medical expenses for the

treatment.

4. It was contended that the claimant was aged

about 18 years. He was working in a private company

and earning Rs.15,000/- per month besides pursuing

his engineering course.

5. On issuance of summons, the owner of the

offending vehicle and the insurance company appeared

before the Tribunal through their respective counsel and

contested the claim. The insurer admitting the coverage

of the insurance policy as on the date of the accident

contended that the liability, if any, is subject to the

terms and conditions of the policy.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, the issues

were framed and answered as per the reasons recorded

in the impugned judgment allowing the claim petition in

part awarding total compensation of Rs.11,01,400/-

with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date

of the petition till its realisation.

7. Being dissatisfied, the claimant has

preferred the present appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant

argued that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the

material evidence on record. The injuries sustained by

the claimant being grievous and considering the

treatment taken by him as an inpatient for a period of

22 days undergoing surgery, the Tribunal ought to have

awarded the just compensation. The injuries sustained

by the claimant has an impact for the rest of his life,

almost he is crippled having suffered the injuries at the

young age. Having regard to the gravity of injuries, the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be

enhanced substantially.

9. Learned counsel for the insurer supporting

the impugned judgment and award submitted that the

Tribunal has awarded the just compensation on

analyzing the oral and documentary evidence profusely

and the same does not call for any interference by this

Court. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

10. We have carefully considered the rival

submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the

parties and perused the original records.

11. The factum of accident and the injuries

sustained by the claimant in the said accident are not

in dispute. It is discerned from the records that the

claimant was aged about 18 years at the time of the

accident. It is contended that he was pursuing his

engineering course besides working in a private

company. Having regard to the qualification of the

claimant and his age, we deem it appropriate to re-

determine the monthly income of the claimant at

Rs.10,000/-. It is discerned from the medical records

that the claimant has suffered the disability of 30% to

the whole body. Considering the disability assessed by

the Orthopedic Surgeon - CW1 at 10% and at 50% by

the Neuro Surgeon - CW.2, the disability assessed by

the Tribunal being reasonable based on the medical

records, we are not inclined to interfere with the same.

Applying the multiplier of '18', loss of future income due

to permanent disability would be Rs.6,48,000/- (10,000

x 12 x 18 x 30%).

12. It is obvious that the claimant has to forego

many of the amenities which he would have otherwise

enjoyed but for the accident. Therefore, we deem it

appropriate to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards

loss of amenities; future medical expenses is enhanced

to Rs.50,000/-. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded

towards marriage prospects. In view of awarding

compensation towards loss of future income, again

awarding a sum of Rs.48,000/- towards loss of earning

is not necessary. A sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded

towards loss of income during laid up period for 3

months (10,000 x 3). Medical and incidental charges

awarded at Rs.3,30,000/- remains intact.

13. For the reasons aforesaid, the total

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed

as under:

Sl.No. Particulars Amount [in Rs.]

1. Pain and sufferings 1,00,000/-

Loss of amenities and

2. 1,00,000/-

Happiness Medical and incidental

3. 3,30,000/-

charges Loss of future earning

4. due to permanent 6,48,000/-

disability Loss of income during

5. laid up period (3 30,000/-

months)

6. Future medical expenses 50,000/-

Towards marriage

7. 1,00,000/-

prospects Total 13,58,000/-

Thus, the claimant shall be entitled to total

compensation of Rs.13,58,000/- with interest at the

rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition

till the date of realization.

14. Hence, the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

ii) The total compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is modified and enhanced to

Rs.13,58,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs

Fifty Eight Thousand only) as against

Rs.11,01,400/- with interest at the rate

of 6% per annum from the date of the

claim petition till its realization.

iii) The portion of the order of the Tribunal

inasmuch as liability and disbursement

remains intact.

iv) The insurance company shall deposit the

amount determined as aforesaid before

the Tribunal within 90 days from the date

of receipt of the certified copy of the

judgment and order.

v) The modified compensation amount shall

be disbursed in terms of the order of the

Tribunal.

vi) Draw modified award accordingly.

- 10 -

vii) The Registry shall transfer the original

records to the jurisdictional Tribunal

forthwith.

viii) All pending I.As. stand disposed of

accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

PMR