Karnataka High Court
Mahadeva P vs B.C Yogesh on 1 July, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.1171/2015 (MV)
BETWEEN:
MAHADEVA P,
S/O PUTTASWAMY GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O CHIKKANADODDI,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
2ND CROSS, MARUTHI EXTENSION,
CHANNAPATNA TOWN-562160,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. B.C. YOGESH,
MAJOR
S/O CHIKKAHANUMANTHAIAH,
RESIDING AT NO.146/A,
BEVOOR VILLAGE & POST,
MALUR HOBLI,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK-562160,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
NO.31, T.B.R. TOWER, 1ST CROSS,
NEW MISSION ROAD,
NEAR BANGALORE STOCK EXCHANGE,
BENGALURU-560 002. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
R-1 SERVED)
2
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.04.2014 PASSED
IN MVC.NO.350/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
JMFC, MACT, CHANNAPATNA, RAMANGAR DISTRICT, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THROUGH
'VIDEO CONFERENCE' THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award
dated 09.04.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.350/2012 on the file of
the Senior Civil Judge, JMFC, MACT, Channapatna, Ramanagar
District ('the Tribunal' for short) questioning the quantum of
compensation.
2. The parties are referred to as per their original
rankings before the Tribunal to avoid the confusion and for the
convenience of the Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the claimant
met with an accident on 21.07.2011 and as a result of the
accident he sustained wedge compression fracture - T12
vertebra and he was an inpatient for a period of ten days and in
support of his contention he examined the doctor as P.W.2 and
the doctor assessed the disability of 30%.
4. The main contention of the appellant is that the
compensation awarded under all the heads are meagre and
hence it requires interference of this Court. The learned counsel
would submit that the accident is of the year 2011 and the
Tribunal has erroneously taken the income of Rs.4,500/- per
month and ought to have taken the notional income of
Rs.6,500/- per month. The Tribunal has awarded meagre
amount under all the heads and fastened the liability on the
insured. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
5. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 would
submit that the compensation awarded taking 30% disability is
on the higher side and the Tribunal awarded just and reasonable
compensation and hence it does not require any interference of
this Court.
6. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also
on perusal of the records, the points that arise for the
consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error
in not awarding just and reasonable
compensation?
(ii) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error
in fastening the liability on the insured instead
of the Insurance Company?
Point No.(i):
7. Having heard the arguments of the respective
learned counsel and on perusal of the records, an amount of
Rs.10,837/- is awarded under the head medical expenses based
on the medical records and hence it does not require any
interference.
8. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,500/-
under the head lay off compensation and an amount of
Rs.1,000/- under the head attendant charges and he was an
inpatient for a period of ten days. Hence, it is appropriate to
award an amount of 10,000/- as against Rs.2,500/-.
9. The Tribunal while awarding the compensation under
the head loss of income, took the income of Rs.4,500/- per
month. In the absence of any documentary proof, the Tribunal
ought to have considered the notional income of Rs.6,500/- per
month. Hence, taking the income of Rs.6,500/- per month and
the relevant multiplier of '17' and the disability of 30%, the loss
of income comes to Rs.3,97,800/- (Rs.6,500/- x 12 x 17 x
30%).
10. The Tribunal awarded the compensation of
Rs.20,000/- under the head pain and suffering. It is the
accident of the year 2011 and the claimant has suffered wedge
compression fracture - T12 vertebra. Hence, it is appropriate to
award an amount of Rs.35,000/- under the head pain and
suffering.
11. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/-
under the head loss of amenities and the same is also meagre.
The claimant was aged about 27 years as on the date of the
accident and he has to lead his rest of the life with 30%
disability. Hence, it is appropriate to award an amount of
Rs.40,000/- under the head loss of amenities.
In all, the appellant/claimant is entitled for a total
compensation of Rs.4,93,637/- as against Rs.3,28,740/-. The
appellant is not entitled for interest for the delayed period of
1314 days.
Point No.(ii):
12. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also
on perusal of the records, the Tribunal came to the conclusion
that the driver was not having the driving licence and hence
fastened the liability on the insured. In view of the judgments
of the Apex Court in the cases of PAPPU AND OTHERS v.
VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANOTHER reported in (2018) 3
SCC 208 and NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SWARAN
SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297, the
Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount
and recover the same from the insured.
13. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal dated 09.04.2014 passed in
M.V.C.No.350/2012 is modified granting
compensation of Rs.4,93,637/- as against
Rs.3,28,740/- with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of petition till
deposit. The appellant is not entitled for
interest for the delayed period of 1314 days.
(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the
compensation amount with interest within six
weeks from today and recover the same from
the insured.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
