Veera Devadiga vs Ummar Farooq
2021 Latest Caselaw 1986 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2021

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

             M.F.A. NO.5956 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:

VEERA DEVADIGA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O LATE MANJA DEVADIGA
R/O NEAR GOPALA KRISHNA TEMPLE
UPLADI, BANNADI VILLAGE
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT
AT PRESENT R/AT PADUBAIL KARKADA VILLAGE
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.
                                             ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H, ADV.)

AND:

1.     UMMAR FAROOQ
       AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
       S/O SULTHAN BYARI
       R/O ZUBEDA MANZIL
       M.G. COLONY, MADHUVANA
       VADDARSE VILLAGE
       UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.

2.     THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       FIRST FLOOR, GANESH MAHAL
       KUNDAPURA
       REP BY ITS MANAGER.
                                           ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADV., FOR R2)
                           ---
                                2




      THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.1.2019 PASSED
IN MVC NO.1055/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS,             THIS   DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has

been filed by the claimant against the judgment dated

23.01.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly

stated are that on 19.09.2017 at about 6.30 p.m. when the

claimant was proceeding from Saligrama towards Karkada

over mud road on the left side of N.H.66, one motor cycle

bearing registration No.KA 20 EM 6439 came from Kota

towards Sasthana which was being driven by its driver in a

rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant

from behind. The claimant fell down and sustained grievous

injuries all over the body. The claimant was hospitalized and

he remained inpatient for a period of 5 days.

3. Thereupon, the claimant filed a petition under

Section 166(1) of the Act inter alia on the ground that the

accident has taken place on account of the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle. It was

further pleaded that the injured was employed as a

fisherman and used to earn Rs.28,000/- p.m. It was further

pleaded that the claimant was entitled to compensation of

Rs.24,11,000/- along with interest.

4. The respondent filed written statement in which it

was denied that the accident occurred on account of the rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle. The

amount spent by the claimant on account of treatment and

towards food and nourishment charges was also denied.

The income and avocation of the claimant was also denied.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded

the evidence. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and

got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. The

respondents neither examined any witness nor produced any

documents. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned

judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on

account of rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by

its driver. It was further held, that the claimant is entitled to

compensation to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/- along with

interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till

the date of realisation. In the aforesaid factual background,

this appeal has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

appellant has sustained fractures and the Tribunal grossly

erred in not awarding any amount to the appellant under the

head of loss of future income. It is also submitted that the

amount awarded under various other heads is on the lower

side. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance

Company submitted that the amount awarded by the

Tribunal is just and proper and does call for any interference.

7. We have considered the submissions made by

learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

The only question which arises for our consideration in this

appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation. As

per the wound certificate Ex.P5, the appellant has sustained

the following injuries:

1. Cut lacerated wound over right upper eye lid (2 x 1 cm)

2. Fracture ilium.

3. Fracture mandible

4. Tempo mandibular joint sublimation

5. Left petrous temporal bone fracture

The Tribunal has held that injury Nos.2 to 5 are

grievous in nature whereas injury No.1 is a facture injury. It

has further been held that as per Ex.P7, the petitioner was

inpatient for a period from 19.09.2017 to 23.09.2017.

However, the doctor has not been examined by the claimant

to prove that he has sustained any permanent disability on

account of injuries sustained by him in the accident. The

appellant has not adduced any evidence with regard to his

income. Therefore, the income has to be assessed notionally

on the basis of the chart prepared by the Karnataka State

Legal Services Authority. Therefore, we hold that the

claimant is entitled to Rs.22,000/- on account of loss of

income during laid up period instead of Rs.16,000/-. The

amount awarded under the head of loss of amenities in life is

enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. The amount awarded under the

head of pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. The

amount awarded under the remaining heads is maintained

and the claimant is not entitled to any amount under the

head of loss of future income in the absence of any evidence

on record. Thus, the appellant is held entitled to enhanced

compensation of Rs.31,000/-. The aforesaid amount shall

carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the

petition till the realization of the amount of compensation.

To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the

Claims Tribunal is modified.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV