Rudrayya Swamy @ Rudraswamy vs Basanagouda
2022 Latest Caselaw 404 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

       MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.101531/2017(MV)

BETWEEN:

RUDRAYYA SWAMY @ RUDRASWAMY
@ RUDRAYYA SHASTRI S/O SHIVAYYA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT: 42 YEARS
OCC: MUSIC TEACHER
MYTH PREACHER, VIDIKH AND AGRICULTURE
R/O. MADLAPUR
NOW AT MANJUNATHA NAGAR
W.NO.2, HOSALLI, TQ. GANGAVATHI
DIST. KOPPAL.
                                             ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. B. SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE)

AND:


1.    BASANAGOUDA
      S/O. SIDDANAGOUDA VATHAR
      AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
      OCC: DRIVER OF VRL LORRY
      NO.KA-25/B-5300
      R/O. SALAVADAGI, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL

2.    THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
      M/S VRL LOGISTICS LTD.,
      REGD. AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
      NO.04, BENGALURU ROAD, VARUR
      HUBBALLI. DIST. DHARWAD
                               2




3.   THE MANAGER
     UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
     CBS CIRCLE, SANMAN HOTEL COMPLEX
     GANGAVATHI.
                                               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
    SRI. S. S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
    R1 - NOTICED DISPENSED WITH))
                              ---

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.407/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, GANGAVATHI,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

The instant appeal has been filed by the

claimant being not satisfied with the compensation

amount awarded by the Court of Senior Civil Judge

and MACT, Gangavathi (hereinafter referred to as

'the Tribunal', for brevity), in MVC No.407/2014 vide

its judgment and award dated 22.09.2016.

2. Though the matter is listed for orders, with

the consent of learned counsel appearing on both

sides, the same is taken up for final hearing.

3. The parties to the appeal are referred to

their rankings given in the Tribunal, for the sake of

convenience.

4. The brief facts of the case as revealed from

the records are;

The claimant was proceeding in his motorcycle

bearing registration No.KA-33/H-6327 on 18.12.2013

from Gangavathi to Karatagi and at about 11.30 am,

when he reached Gangavathi-Sindhanur main road,

near Sriramanagar, a lorry bearing registration

No.KA-25/B-5300, which was driven in a rash and

negligent manner by its driver, dashed against the

claimant's motorcycle and caused the accident. The

claimant sustained grievous injuries in the accident

and he was admitted in Dr. Mallanagouda Hospital,

wherein he was treated for a considerable period.

The claimant had suffered disability due to the

accident. The claimant had therefore filed a claim

petition in MVC No.407/2014 under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation

for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic

accident. The Tribunal vide its judgment and award

impugned herein had partly allowed the claim petition

and granted compensation of `1,73,622/- with

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

realization to the claimant. The respondent No.3 -

Insurer was saddled with the liability to pay

compensation amount as the validity of the Insurance

Policy at the time of the accident was not disputed.

Being not satisfied with the compensation amount

awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is before this

Court.

5. Learned counsel for the claimant submits

that the accident is of the year 2013 and therefore,

the notional income of the claimant ought to have

been taken at `7,000/- per month instead of `5,000/-

He submits that, even under other heads, the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the

lower side and therefore, prays to allow the appeal.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

the Insurer submits that the Tribunal has awarded a

just and proper compensation, which needs no

interference by this Court. He argues in support of

the impugned judgment and award and prays to

dismiss the appeal.

7. I have carefully considered the rival

arguments and also perused the material on record.

8. The accident in question is not disputed, so

also the fact that the claimant had suffered injuries

in the said accident is not disputed. As rightly

contended by the learned counsel appearing for the

claimant, since the claimant had failed to produce

sufficient material to establish his income, the

Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income at

`7,000/- per month, in view of the income chart

maintained by the Karnataka State Legal Services

Authority for the purpose of disposal of the motor

accident cases before the Lok Adalath. The disability

to the whole body is taken by the Tribunal at 12%.

The applicable multiplier would be 14 and therefore,

towards 'loss of future income due to disability', the

claimant would be entitled for a compensation of

` 1,41,120/- (7000x12x14x12%) in stead of

`1,00,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. Considering

the nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant

and the treatment undergone for the same, towards

'pain and suffering', the claimant is entitled for a

sum of ` 30,000/- in stead of `20,000/-. Towards

'loss of future amenities in life', the claimant is

entitled for a compensation of ` 25,000/-, in stead of

`10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Towards 'loss of

earnings during treatment period', the claimant is

entitled for a sum of ` 14,000/- and towards

'incidental expenses', the claimant is entitled for a

sum of ` 15,000/- as against `5,000/- awarded by

the Tribunal. The compensation of `27,822/-

awarded by the Tribunal towards the medical

expenses remained unaltered.

9. Therefore, totally, the claimant is entitled

for a sum of ` 2,52,942/- as against `1,73,672/-

awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly I pass the

following:

ORDER

The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. The claimant is entitled for an enhanced compensation ` 79,270/-, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a.

The respondent-Insurance Company, which has not disputed the liability, is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

The order passed by the Tribunal insofar as it relates to disbursement and deposit of the compensation amount would also be applicable to the enhanced amount of compensation.

Sd/-

JUDGE gab