The Branch Manager vs Sri.M. Noor S/O Mehaboob Beg
2022 Latest Caselaw 817 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 18 T H DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

              M.F.A. No.23230/2012 (MV)

BET WEEN

THE B RANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LT D.,
REPRES ENTED THROU GH ITS
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LT D.,
REG IONAL OFFICE,
ARIHANT COMPLEX ,
KU SUGAL ROAD, HUBB ALLI,
R/B Y IT S ADMINIS TRATIVE OFFICER.
                                           ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI N.R.KU PPELU R, ADVOCATE)

AND

SRI M.NOOR S/O MEHABOOB BEG,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: MESTRI,
R/O ANDRAL VIL LA GE,
D.C.COLONY , B ALLARI.
                                          ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI Y.LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEA L IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEH ICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE J UDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.03.2 012 PASS ED IN
MVC No.246/ 2011 ON THE F ILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIB U NAL-V, B ALLARI, PART LY ALLOWIN G THE
CLAIM   PET IT ION FOR  COMPENSAT ION   AND  S EEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEA L COMING ON FOR HEARING, TH IS DAY
THE COU RT DELIVERED THE FOLL OWING:
                                      2




                               JUDGMENT

The insurer of the offend ing vehicle bearing

registration No.KA-34/M-9275 has preferred this appeal

challenging the quantum of compensation award ed by

the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V at

Ballari (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal', for

brevity) in MVC No.246/2011 by its judgment and

award dated 31.03.2012.

2. The parties to this appeal are referred to by

their rankings before the Tribunal for the purpose of

convenience.

3. Brief facts of the case that would be

relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal

are:

On 14.01.2011 when the claimant was traveling

in a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-34/U-3643

at about 4.30 p.m. the offending car bearing

registration No.KA-34/M-9275 which was driven in a

rash and negligent manner by its driver dashed

against the motorcycle of the claimant near Andral

Cross at bypass road and caused the accident. As a

result, the claimant suffered grievous injuries in the

accident and he shifted to private hospital, wherein

he was admitted as an inpatient. The claimant had

suffered disability in the said accident. The claimant

had therefore filed a claim petition under Section 166

of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the 'Act')

claiming compensation of `7,50,000/- against the

owner and insurer of the offending car. The Tribunal

by its judgment and award dated 31.03.2012 had

partly allowed the claim petition awarding total

compensation of `2,88,500/- with interest at 6% per

annum from the date of petition till realization. Being

aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded

by the Tribunal, the insurer of the offending car is

before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the insurer submits

that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

towards pain and suffering having regard to the

nature of injuries is on the higher side. He also

submits that the notional income of the injured ought

to have been taken at `6,000/- per month instead of

`7,500/- taken by the Tribunal. He further submits

that the compensation awarded under the incidental

heads is on the higher side.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

the claimant submits that the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal is just and proper having regard to

the fact that the Tribunal has not awarded any

compensation to the claimant towards loss of

amenities in future life and also towards loss of

income during laid up period. He submits that if the

overall evidence is appreciated on record and the

compensation amount to be awarded to the claimant

is recalculated, the Tribunal has awarded just and

reasonable compensation which needs no

interference.

6. I have carefully appreciated the arguments

addressed on both sides and also perused the

material available on record.

7. It is not in dispute that the claimant had

suffered grievous injury in the accident in question

and he was treated as an inpatient in a private

hospital. The doctor who has been examined before

the Tribunal has deposed to the effect that the

claimant is having deformity over the left shoulder

with gross restriction of movement with a pain as a

result of wasting of left shoulder muscle. He had

assessed the disability to the whole body because of

the said injury to the extent of 14%. The Tribunal

having considered the notional income of the

claimant at `7,500/- per month and taking into

consideration the disability to the whole body at 14%

by applying the correct multiplier has awarded

compensation of `2,26,800/-. As rightly contended by

the learned counsel for the claimant, the Tribunal has

not awarded any compensation to the claimant

towards loss of future amenities in life. In my

considered view the claimant would be entitled for

atleast a sum of `30,000/- towards loss of amenities

in future life and additional sum of `18,000/- towards

loss of income during laid up period. Therefore, even

if the notional income of the claimant is taken at

`6,000/- per month and if the compensation amount

is recalculated having regard to the fact that the

Tribunal has not awarded any compensation to the

claimant towards loss of future amenities and also

towards loss of income during laid up period, the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is just

and proper and needs no interference. Even the rate

of interest awarded by the Tribunal on the

compensation amount is proper. Under the

circumstances, I find no good grounds to interfere

with the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.

The amount in deposit before this Court is

directed to be transferred to the Tribunal for the

purpose of disbursement.

SD/-

JUDGE

CLK