Karnataka High Court
Chandrakant S/O Channappa ... vs Jagannath S/O Tukaram And Ors on 16 March, 2022
Bench: Ashok S. Kinagi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
M. F. A. NO. 32782 OF 2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
CHANDRAKANT
S/O CHANNAPPA GADAWANTI
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCC:AGRIL & AGRIL LABOUR
R/O HALLIKHED (K), TQ: HUMNABAD
NOW AT H.NO.11-1400/80/6,
SHIVA NAGAR, BIDDAPUR COLONY
GULBARGA - 585 101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BABU H METAGUDDA, ADV.)
AND
1. JAGANNATH
S/O TUKARAM
AGE: MAJOR, OCC:DRIVER
R/O AT POST SADALAPUR, TQ:BASAVAKALYANA
DIST:BIDAR - 585 401
2. MEGHARAJ
S/O TIRTHAYYA MATPATI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O SIRGAPUR TQ:BASAVAKALYANA
DIST:BIDAR - 585 401
2
3. THE MANAGER
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
E-8, EPIP, RIICO, SITAPUR, JAIPUR,
RAJASTHAN - 302 022
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. S. KALABURGI, ADV. FOR R3
V/O DTD 30.07.2015, NOTICE TO R1 & R2 DISPENSED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.09.2012 PASSED IN
MVC NO.1054/2010 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT AT GULBARGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION AND DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.3-INSURANCE
COMPANY TO PAY THE ENTIRE COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT 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 aggrieved by
the judgment dated 14.09.2012, passed in MVC
No.1054/2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Gulbarga.
For the sake of convenience, parties are referred
to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal.
The appellant is the claimant and respondents are the
respondents before the Tribunal.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 10.10.2010, at about 12.30
p.m., when the claimant was crossing the road on
Gulbarga-Humnabad road, one Ashok Leyland Lorry
bearing registration No.KA-39/6175 came from
Gulbarga side being driven by its driver at a high
speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to
the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident,
the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was
hospitalized and he spent huge amount towards
medical expenses.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section
166 of the Act seeking compensation.
4. The respondent No.1 appeared and filed
written statement denying the age, occupation and
income of the claimant and also denied the other
averments made in the claim petition.
Respondent No.2 also filed written statement on
the same set of defence taken by respondent No.1.
Respondent No.3 filed written statement denying
the averments made in the claim petition. The age,
occupation and income of the claimant were denied
and also the nature of accident was denied. It is
contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was
not having a valid and effective driving licence at the
time of the accident and violated the terms and
conditions of the policy. Hence, sought for dismissal
of the petition.
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 the doctor was examined as PW-
2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to
Ex.P13. On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses
were examined, but got marked Ex.R1. The Claims
Tribunal, after recording the evidence and considering
the material on record held that the claimant has
proved that while the claimant was crossing the road,
the offending vehicle driven by its driver came in rash
and negligent manner and dashed to the claimant due
to which the claimant fell down and sustained grievous
injuries and further recorded a finding that respondent
No.3 has proved that the accident took place because
of the negligent crossing of road by the claimant and
further respondent No.3 has failed to prove that the
driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid
and effective driving licence at the time of accident
and violated the terms and conditions of the policy.
The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled
to a compensation of Rs.6,31,000/-along with interest
at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the respondent
No.3 to deposit the 80% of the compensation amount
i.e., Rs.5,04,800/- along with interest and deducted
20% due to wrongful act of the claimant himself.
Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal, the claimant has filed the present appeal
seeking for enhancement of compensation amount.
6. Heard learned counsel for the claimant and
learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
7. The learned counsel for the claimant
submits that there was no negligence on the part of
the claimant and the Tribunal has committed an error
in fastening liability at the ratio of 80% - 20%. He
further submits that the compensation awarded under
the other heads are on lower side. Hence, sought for
allowing the appeal.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
No.3, Insurance Company submits that in the
complaint it is mentioned that the petitioner was
crossing the road and he was negligent in crossing the
road. So he has contributed for the cause of accident.
He further submits that the Tribunal was justified in
fastening the liability at the ratio of 80% - 20%. He
further submits that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for
interference. Hence, sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
9. Perused the records and considered the
submission made by learned counsel for the parties.
10. The point that arise for consideration is with
regard to quantum of compensation and liability.
11. It is not in dispute that the claimant met
with an accident on 10.10.2010, when he was
crossing the road. The offending vehicle dashed
against the claimant due to which the claimant fell
down and sustained grievous injuries. Further, in
order to prove that the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the offending
vehicle, the claimant has produced copy of charge-
sheet marked as Ex.P2. Ex.P2 discloses that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the offending vehicle.
12. Insofar as liability is concerned, though
respondent No.2 has taken a specific defence in the
written statement that the claimant while crossing the
road has not taken precaution and hence he has
contributed for the cause of accident. The petitioner
has produced copy of complaint marked as Ex.P1(a)
which discloses that accident occurred when the
petitioner was crossing the road. Even the petitioner
has pleaded the said fact in the claim petition. It was
the duty of the petitioner to take precaution while
crossing the road. In the present case, though
suggestion was put to PW-1 that accident occurred
due to his own negligence, but the said suggestion
was denied by the PW-1. From the perusal of
Ex.P1(a), it clearly discloses that the accident
occurred when the petitioner was crossing the road.
The petitioner while crossing the road has not taken
precaution. Thus, petitioner has contributed for the
cause of the accident. The Tribunal after considering
the material on record was justified in fastening
liability on both the petitioner and the respondents.
13. Insofar as quantum of compensation is
concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that the
petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and suffered
permanent disability. In order to prove the disability,
the petitioner examined the doctor as PW-2. PW-2
has deposed that the petitioner has sustained the
following injuries:
1) small CLW Rt.Temporal region;
2) fracture of Rt. Clavicle;
3) fracture of Rt. Thigh bone;
4) small CLW over Rt. Occipital region; and
5) blunt injuries to chest.
The doctor opined that the petitioner has
sustained disability of 40% to the whole body. The
Tribunal has assessed the disability at 40% to the
whole body as assessed by the doctor which is just
and proper. The accident is of the year 2010. the
petitioner has contended that he is the agriculturist by
profession and getting annual income of Rs.1,00,000/-
and Rs.9,000/- per month towards agriculture labour.
In order to substantiate his contention, the petitioner
has not tendered any evidence. However, the
Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.6,500/-
per month. Considering the age of the petitioner who
was aged 41 years at the time of accident, the
Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 14 and
awarded a sum of Rs.4,36,800/- towards loss of
future income and the same is just and proper.
Considering the nature of injuries and evidence
of doctor, this Court re-assess the compensation
under the following heads:
Compensation awarded in Rs.
Particulars By the By this
Tribunal Court
Loss of future income 4,36,800/- 4,36,800/-
Pain and suffering 25,000/- 40,000/-
Loss of prospectus in life 25,000/- 40,000/-
Medical expenses 89,751/- 89,751/-
Diet, Nourishment &
Attendant and conveyance 15,000/- 25,000/-
etc.
Loss of income during laid
19,500/- 19,500/-
up period
Future Medical Expenses 20,000/- 20,000/-
Total 6,31,051/- 6,71,051/-
Rounded off 6,31,000/- 6,71,000/-
Enhanced by this Court 40,000/-
Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.6,71,000/- as against Rs.6,31,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated
14.09.2012, is modified. The claimant is entitled to an
enhanced compensation of Rs.40,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of
the claim petition till the date of realization. Respondent
No.3, Insurance Company is directed to deposit 80% of
the enhanced compensation amount i.e., 32,000/- along
with interest, within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
The Tribunal is directed to release the enhanced
compensation in favour of the petitioner.
SD/-
JUDGE
RD
