Karnataka High Court

Sri. M Mahadevamurthy vs Sri. H S Ashok on 25 May, 2022

Bench: H T Prasad

                       1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2022

                    BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

         MFA No.3285 OF 2018(MV)
        C/W MFA NO.4782/2018(MV)

IN MFA NO.3285/2018

BETWEEN

SRI M. MAHADEVAMURTHY
S/O LATE SRI MADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/O HARATALE VILLAGE
VALAGERE POST, KASABA HOBLI,
NANJANAGUDU TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT
                                   ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI V R BALARAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 . SRI. H S ASHOK
    S/O SRI SANNAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
    R/AT NO.168, HADYA VILLAGE
    HULLAHALLI HOBLI
    NANJANAGUDU TALUK
    MYSORE DISTRICT
                        2




2 . THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
    BRANCH OFFICE NO.2
    PB NO.210, NO.38/1E,
    2ND FLOOR
    CHAMARAJA DOUBLE ROAD
    MYSURU-570024
                                ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI H C VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
16.02.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.343/2016 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND
MACT, NANJANGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN MFA NO.4782/2018

BETWEEN

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE,
NO.2, P.B. NO.210,
NO.38/1 E,
2ND FLOOR,
CHAMARAJA DOUBLE ROAD,
MYSURU - 570024.

NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
                           3




TP HUB,
RESIDENCY ROAD CROSOS,
BANGALORE - 56025.
                                  ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI H C VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 . M MAHADEVAMURTHY
    S/O LATE MADAIAH,
    AGED 34 YEARS
    R/O HARATALE VILLAGE,
    VALAGERE POST,
    KASABA HOBLI,
    NANJANGUD TALUK,
    MYSURU DISTRICT.

2 . H.S. ASHOKA
    S/O. SANNAPPA,
    AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
    R/O. HOUSE NO.168,
    HADYA VILLAGE,
    HULLAHALLI HOBLI,
    NANJANGUD TALUK,
    MYSURE DISTRICT.
                                 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V R BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

    THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST     THE    JUDGMENT     AND    AWARD
DATED16.02.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.343/2016 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AND
MACT, NANJANGUD, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
                            4




RS.3,33,387/- WITH INTEREST @ 6%P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION

     THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

MFA 3285/2018 is filed by the claimant and MFA

4782/2018 is filed by the Insurance Company under

Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') being aggrieved

by the judgment and decree dated 16.2.2018 passed

by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and MACT, Nanjangud

in MVC 343/2016.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals

briefly stated are that on 10.12.2015 the claimant was

returning after having tea near V.B.Bakery Hullahalli

Road, at that time, motorbike bearing registration

No.KA-09-HD-8546 being ridden by its rider 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.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section

166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded

that he spent huge amount towards medical

expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded

that the accident occurred purely on account of the

rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by

its driver.

4. On service of notice, the respondents

appeared through counsel and filed written statements

in which the averments made in the petition were

denied.

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

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was

examined as PW-1 and Dr.Purushotham Shetty was

examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents

namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P80. On behalf of the

respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and

got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R2. The

Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia,

held that the accident took place on account of rash

and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its

driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained

injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is

entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,33,387/- along with

interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the

Insurance Company to deposit the compensation

amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, these

appeals have been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the claimant has

raised the following contentions:

Firstly, the claimant claims that he was working

as an Ambulance Driver and earning Rs.10,000/- pm.

Due to the accident, the claimant has sustained

grievous injuries. Due to the injuries, he was unable

to do his work and he rejoined his service in the

month of October 2017. He has not worked for 20

months from the date of accident and there is loss of

income and the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal under the head of 'loss of future income on

account of permanent disability' is on the lower side.

Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as

inpatient for a period of 15 days. Even after discharge

from the hospital, he was not in a position to

discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain

during treatment. Considering the same, the

compensation granted by the Tribunal under the

heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and

other heads are on the lower side. Hence, he sought

for allowing the appeal filed by the claimant.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for

the Insurance Company has raised following counter

contentions:

Firstly, it is not in dispute that the claimant after

recovering from injuries has continued his job and

there is no loss of income. Therefore, the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head

of 'loss of future income on account of permanent

disability' is unsustainable.

Secondly, the claimant has not adduced any

evidence to show that from the date of accident till

October 2017 he was not working. Therefore, he is not

entitled for compensation for 20 months under the

head of 'loss of income during laid-up period'.

Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by the

claimant and considering the age and avocation of the

claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is on the higher side. Hence, he sought for

allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the records.

9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has

sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of the offending

vehicle by its driver.

The claimant claims that he was earning

Rs.10,000/- per month by working as ambulance

driver. As per wound certificate, the claimant has

sustained tenderness on right forehead, scalp,

abrasion on left side of fact, abrasion on forehead and

compound fracture of right leg. PW-2, the doctor has

stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered

disability of 23.06% to the limb. The claimant after

recovering from injuries has continued his job and

there is no loss of income. Since the claimant was a

driver by profession, due to the said injuries, he was

unable to work for 20 months. Therefore, considering

the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate and

evidence of the claimant, I am of the opinion that the

compensation of Rs.1,87,680/- awarded by the

Tribunal under the head of 'loss of future income on

account of permanent disability' is reduced to

Rs.1,00,000/-.

Considering the nature of injuries, the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other

heads is just and reasonable.

10. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

following compensation:

As awarded As awarded Compensation under by the by this different Heads Tribunal Court (Rs.) (Rs.) Pain and sufferings 25,000 25,000 Medical expenses 71,157 71,157 Food, nourishment, 5,000 5,000

conveyance and attendant charges Loss of income during 19,550 19,550 laid up period Loss of amenities 25,000 25,000 Loss of future income 187,680 100,000 Total 333,387 245,707

11. In the result, the appeal filed by the

Insurance Company is allowed in part and the

appeal filed by the claimant is dismissed. The

judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation

of Rs.245,707/- as against Rs.333,387/- awarded by

the Tribunal.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the compensation amount along with interest @ 6%

p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the

date of realization, within a period of six weeks from

the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.