Karnataka High Court
Mohammedf Taher S/O Mohammed ... vs The Director Nationalindustrial ... on 22 March, 2022
Bench: Ashok S. Kinagi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
M. F. A. NO.31850 OF 2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED TAHER,
S/O MOHAMMED NAZEER,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCC: MECHANIC,
R/O KHASIMPUR-C,
BIDAR TALUK & DISTRICT-585 401.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE,
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL FORCE
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
SECUNDRABAD (AP)-50001.
2. SRI. T.S. GUGARIN,
S/O SRIDHARAN,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC: HAWALDAR CISF,
R/O TYPE-II, 45 NISA COLONY,
HAKEEMPETH, SECUNDRABAD (AP)-500 01.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDHIRSINGH R.VIJAPUR, ASIG FOR R1 & R2)
2
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC
NO.198/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE II
ADDL. MACT AND ADDL. DISTRICT COURT AT BIDAR. TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.12.2009
PASSED IN MVC NO.198/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE
COURT OF II ADDL. MACT AND ADDL. DISTRICT COURT AT
BIDAR. AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT FROM RS.1,20,200/- TO
RS.9,00,000/- ONLY AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT
BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR 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 and award dated 04.12.2009 passed in
MVC No.196/2007 by the II Additional Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal & Additional District Court at Bidar.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Claims
Tribunal. Appellant is the claimant and respondents
are the respondents before the Tribunal.
3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 23.07.2006 at about 5.30
p.m., the claimant was travelled in the local train from
Hafeezpeth to Necklace road and get down at
Necklace railway station and met his relative and
proceeding to go to railway station on necklace road,
at that time, the defence Qualis bearing registration
No.TN-23-AZ-6406, came in a high speed, rash and
negligent manner driven by respondent No.2 and lost
control over it and dashed against the claimant and
thereby claimant sustained grievous injuries and was
hospitalized and spent huge money for medical
treatment. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition under
Section 166 of the M.V.Act, seeking for compensation
on the account of injuries sustained in the road traffic
accident.
4. The respondents filed written statement
denying the averments made in the claim petition and
also denied the age, income and avocation and
medical expenses and also negligence act of the driver
on the part of the driving of the offending vehicle.
Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Claims Tribunal framed the issues. The claimant
examined himself as PW-1 and Doctor was examined
as PW-2 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to
Ex.P20. On behalf of the respondents, respondents
have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence.
Hence, the evidence of respondents is taken as nil.
The Tribunal, after recording the evidence and
considering the material on record, held that claimant
has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident,
occurred on 23.07.2006 and the said accident was
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending vehicle and further, held that
claimant is entitled for compensation and
consequently allowed the petition in part and awarded
a compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its
realization and respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation. 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 respondents.
7. The learned counsel for the claimant submits
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the
lower side. He further submits that the Tribunal has
taken notional income of the claimant at Rs.2,250/-
per month, which is on the lower side. He further
submits that, as per the chart issued by the Karnataka
State Legal Services Authority, the accident is of the
year 2006, the Tribunal ought to have taken notional
income at Rs.3,750/-. He further submits that the
compensation awarded under other heads is on the
lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to
allow the appeal.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents
supports the impugned judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal. 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
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
10. The point that arise for consideration is
with regard to quantum of compensation.
11. It is not in dispute that the claimant met
with an accident and sustained injuries in the road
traffic accident. In order to prove that, the accident
was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending vehicle, petitioner has
produced copy of FIR and charge-sheet marked as
Ex.P1 and Ex.17. Ex.P17 discloses that the accident
was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending vehicle.
12. Insofar as quantum of compensation is
concerned, the claimant has contended that he was
working as mechanic and earning Rs.3,000/- per
month. In support of his contention, claimant has not
produced any income proof. In the absence of income
proof, the Tribunal has to take into consideration, the
notional income as per the chart issued by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the accident
is of the year 2006, as per the chart the notional
income has to be taken at Rs.3,750/-. In order to
prove, the disability the claimant examined the doctor
as PW-2 and he has stated that on examine the
claimant and has assessed the disability to an extent
of 40% and 30% to the whole body. But, the Tribunal
has assessed the disability at 20%. The disability
assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper.
13. Considering the material placed on record,
this Court reassessed the compensation under the
following heads:
Compensation awarded in
Rs.
Particulars
By the By this
Tribunal Court
Pain and sufferings 15,000/- 30,000/-
Loss of amenities in life 10,000/- 20,000/-
Loss of income during the
Nil 11,250/-
laid-up period
Food and nourishment Nil 10,000/-
Medical expenses 3,400/- 3,400/-
Loss of future income 91,800/- 1,53,000/-
Total 1,20,200/- 2,27,650/-
Enhanced by this Court 1,07,450/-
Thus, the claimant is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.2,27,650/- as against
Rs.1,20,200/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled for
enhanced compensation of Rs.1,07,450/-.
14. In view of the above discussion, the appeal
is allowed in part. Judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal dated 04.12.2009, is modified. The claimant
is entitled for enhanced compensation of
Rs.1,07,450/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till the realization of amount.
Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation amount along with interest, within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy
of this judgment.
SD/-
JUDGE
GRD
