Karnataka High Court
Shri Veeregowda H R vs Shri Byregowda M L on 6 January, 2021
Author: S.Sujatha And M.I.Arun
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
MFA NO.4123 OF 2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. VEEREGOWDA H. R.
S/O RAMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT HOSUR VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
RAMANAGARA TALUK
AND DISTRICT ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJU S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. BYREGOWDA M. L.
S/O LINGEGOWDA M. C.
R/AT NO.11, MEGALADODDI
URAGAHALLI, RAMANAGARA
TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 159
2. CHANDRA
S/O LATE KARIGOWDA
R/AT NO.67, HOTTIGANA
HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
MALUR HOBLI
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 572 159
3. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
S.V.R. COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR
2
NO.89, HOSUR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 030 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 23.01.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.188/2016,
ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL MACT, RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
M.I.ARUN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
23.01.2018 passed in MVC No.188/2016 by the
Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ramanagara
(for short 'the Tribunal'), the petitioner therein has
preferred this appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.04.2015,
at 9.30 a.m., when the petitioner was going in a
motorcycle bearing registration No.MYO-8986 from
Ramanagara to Channapatna and when he was near
mini Vidhana Soudha, a motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-42/L-1439 being driven by respondent no.2 in a
rash and negligent manner came and hit the petitioner's
vehicle and thereby the motorcycle got damaged and
the petitioner fell down and suffered injuries to his right
leg, left hand and other parts of the body. Accordingly,
he preferred MVC No.188/2016 before the Tribunal.
4. After service of notice, respondent no.1 who is the
owner of the offending motorcycle and respondent no.2
who was rider of the vehicle at the time of the accident
remained absent. Respondent no.3-Insurance Company
with whom the offending motorcycle was duly insured
entered appearance through an Advocate and denied the
liability. The petitioner, to prove his case, got examined
himself as PW.1 and a Doctor as PW.2 and got marked
Exs.P1 to P18. The respondents have neither let in any
evidence nor got marked any documents.
5. Based on the pleadings and the evidence let in, the
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,51,954/- as
compensation to the petitioner along with interest @ 7%
per annum from the date of claim petition till its
realization. Not satisfied by the same, the petitioner has
preferred this appeal.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. The accident happened in the year 2015. The
petitioner was aged 46 years at the time of the accident.
The Tribunal based on the evidence let in has assessed
the whole body disability at 12%. No reason is assigned
in the appeal as to why the finding of the Tribunal
insofar as age and percentage of disability assessed in
respect of the petitioner has to be changed. As no proof
as to the income of the petitioner was produced, the
Tribunal has considered his notional income at
Rs.6,000/- per month. The accident being of the year
2015, we find the same to be on the lower side and as
per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority in consultation with Insurance
Companies. The same has to be taken at Rs.9,000/- per
month. Accordingly, the petitioner would be entitled to
a sum of Rs.1,68,480/- towards loss of future earnings
on account of permanent disability as against
Rs.1,12,320/- awarded by the Tribunal [9,000/- x 12 x
13 multiplier x 12%]. No amount has been awarded
towards future medical expenses and we deem it
appropriate to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- on the said
count. A sum of Rs.82,634/- is awarded towards
expenses incurred on treatment, hospitalization,
medicines and miscellaneous expenses and we deem it
appropriate to hold the same as correct. Towards
nourishment and attendant charges, a sum of
Rs.5,000/- is awarded and we deem it appropriate to
enhance the same to Rs.10,000/-. A sum of
Rs.12,000/- is awarded towards loss of earnings during
the period of treatment i.e. laid up period. Given his
income at Rs.9,000/- per month, we deem it appropriate
to enhance the same to Rs.27,000/-. Towards pain and
suffering, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded. We deem it
appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.35,000/-.
Towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, a sum
of Rs.15,000/- is awarded. We deem it appropriate to
enhance the same to Rs.30,000/-. Thus, in all, the
petitioner would be entitled to a sum of Rs.3,63,114/- as
against Rs.2,51,954/- awarded by the Tribunal. The
enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of petition till its realization.
8. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i] Appeal is allowed in part.
ii] The total compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is modified and enhanced to
Rs.3,63,114/- as against Rs.2,51,954/- which
shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per
annum on the enhanced compensation from
the date of the claim petition till its
realization.
iii] The insurance company shall deposit the re-
assessed total compensation determined as
aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days
from the date of receipt of the certified copy
of the judgment and order.
iv] The portion of the order of the Tribunal
inasmuch as liability, apportionment and
disbursement remains intact.
v] The modified compensation shall be
disbursed in terms of the order of the
Tribunal.
vi] Draw modified award accordingly.
Learned counsel Sri.B.Pradeep is permitted to file
power within two weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
hkh.
