Karnataka High Court
Basavaraju vs Mrs. R. Shobha on 26 May, 2022
Bench: B.Veerappa, K S Hemalekha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.9432/2015 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O LATE NAGAIAH,
IST CROSS, N.R.COLONY,
TUMKUR DISTRICT- 572 132.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MUSHTAQ AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MRS. R. SHOBHA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
W/O M. RAVIKUMAR,
NO.9, ANTHARASANAHALLI,
N.H.4 BYPASS,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132.
2. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
CORPORATION OFFICE,
SUNDARA TOWERS,
45 AND 46 WHITERS ROAD,
-2-
CHANNAI - 600 014,
REGIONAL OFFICE 21,
PATULLOS ROAD,
CHANNAI - 600 002,
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2
VIDE ORDER DATED 06.12.2018 NOTICE TO R1 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
****
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 08.10.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1182/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 6TH ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE AND AMACT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON
FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The claimant, who is Second Division Assistant has
preferred the present appeal assailing the judgment and
award dated 08.10.2015 made in MVC No.1182/2012 on
the file of the VI Additional District Judge and AMACT,
Tumkur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short)
awarding total compensation of Rs.2,39,589/- with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till
the date of realization seeking enhancement of
compensation.
2. The claimant filed claim petition under the
provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
("the Act" for short), seeking compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained in a road
traffic accident that occurred on 22.03.2012. It is
contended that when the claimant was proceeding towards
his office on Madhugiri-Tumkur Road, at that time, a
Maruthi Krupa Bus bearing registration No.KA-06-B-5119
came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against
the claimant. As a result, claimant fell down and sustained
grievous injuries and immediately, he was shifted to the
Government Hospital, Koratagere, wherein he took
treatment as an inpatient for a period of three months
from 22.03.2012 to 22.05.2012 and underwent surgery
and he spent more than Rs.3.00 lakhs towards medical
expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards traveling and other
incidental expenses. Due to injuries sustained in the road
traffic accident, he is not in a position to do the work as
before and applied leave for more than six months and
thereby he suffered mental and physical agony. The
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the
part of the driver of the Maruthi Krupa Bus stated supra.
The jurisdictional police have registered a case against the
driver of the said bus in Crime No.78/202 for the offence
punishable under the provisions of Sections 279 and 338
of IPC. Respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending
vehicle and respondent No.2 being the insurer of the
vehicle are liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, he
sought for compensation.
3. In pursuance of the notice issued by the
Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle remained
absent and was placed ex-parte before the Tribunal.
4. Respondent No.2-insurance company appeared
and filed written statement denying the averments made
in the claim petition and admitted the issuance of policy in
respect of the Maruthi Krupa Bus and its validity as on the
date of the accident and denied that the accident occurred
due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the
offending vehicle. Thereby the claimant is not entitled for
the compensation and sought to dismiss the claim petition.
5. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
1. F C¥ÀWÁvÀªÀÅ ªÀiÁgÀÄw PÀÈ¥À ¸ÀASÉÊ: PÉ.J.06-©5119gÀ
ZÁ®PÀ£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß CvÉƪÉÃUÀ, CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvɬÄAzÀ
ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹, ªÀÄzsÀÄVj-vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è vÀªÀÄä PÀbÉÃjUÉ
ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ JqÀ§¢AiÀÄ°è £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ
CfðzÁgÀjUÉ rQÌ ºÉÆqɹzÀ ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄ C¥ÀWÁvÀªÀÅAmÁV,
¸ÀzÀj C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è CfðzÁgÀjUÉ wêÀæ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ
UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄAmÁzÀªÉAzÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ
¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ?
2. CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CºÀðgÁVzÁÝgÁ? ºÁVzÀÝ°è
AiÀiÁjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JµÀÄÖ ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä
CºÀðgÁVzÁÝgÉ?
3. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ CxÀªÁ CªÁqïð?
6. Claimant, in order to substantiate his case,
claimant himself examined as PW.1 and examined one
more witness as PW.2 and got marked 18 documents as
Exs.P.1 to P.18. On the other hand, insurance company
neither examined the witness nor marked documents.
7. The Tribunal considering the evidence,
pleadings and entire material on record held that the
claimant proved that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing
Registration No.KA-06-B-1159 and thereby the claimant
sustained two fractures and two grievous injuries.
Accordingly, the Tribunal by the impugned judgment,
awarded total compensation of Rs.2,39,589/- with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till
the date of realization. Hence, the present appeal is filed
by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of
compensation.
8. Respondent No.2-insurance company has not
filed any appeal against the judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties to the lis.
10. Learned counsel Sri Mushtaq Ahmed for the
appellant contended with vehemence that the impugned
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal awarding total
compensation of Rs.2,39,589/- with interest @ 6% p.a. is
on the lower side and requires to be enhanced. Due to the
accident, claimant was hospitalized for more than three
months and sustained two fractures and two grievous
injuries and the same has not been considered by the
Tribunal in the proper perspective, thereby the award of
compensation by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The
claimant examined the Doctor as PW.2 and though PW.2
stated on oath that the claimant has sustained 24%
disability to the whole body, the Tribunal has not taken
into consideration. Therefore, sought for enhancement of
compensation by allowing the appeal.
11. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Ravi S.
Samprathi for the insurance company while justifying the
impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal has
contended that the claimant was working as Second
Division Assistant at Pattana Panchayati, Koratagere and
there is no loss of future income. In light of fractures
sustained, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the
compensation of Rs.2,39,589/- with interest @ 6% p.a.,
which is just and proper and does not call for interference
in the hands of this Court. Therefore, he sought to dismiss
the appeal.
12. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions urged
by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that
would arise for our consideration in the present appeal is:
"Whether the appellant/claimant has made
out a case for enhancement of
compensation, in the facts and
circumstances of the case?"
13. We have given our anxious consideration to
the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material on records carefully.
14. The material on record clearly depicts that the
accident occurred on 22.03.2012 due to rash and negligent
driving of the bus bearing registration No.KA-06-B-5119 by
its driver and the claimant has sustained following grievous
injuries:
1. Crush injury left ankle
2. Fracture of Neck of II, III, IV and V Metatarsal, left
foot.
3. Left foot swelling
4. Fracture of proximal phalanx of I toe.
The same is evidenced by the material documents
Ex.P2 - FIR; Ex.P5 - IMV report; Ex.P6 - charge sheet;
Ex.P4 - the wound certificate and Ex.P7 - discharge
summary. Admittedly, the Insurance company has not
challenged the official documents stated supra, thereby
- 10 -
rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver as well
as claimant sustaining fractures stated supra, have been
proved.
15. Though PW.2-Doctor stated on oath that the
claimant sustained 24% disability to the whole body, the
Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the
head loss of income due to disability, which requires to be
awarded. It is contended by the claimant in the claim
petition as well as in the present appeal that he has
suffered from the depression due to the accident and he
has taken leave for six months and the Tribunal awarded
Rs.12,200/- towards attendant charges and Rs.10,000/-
each for transportation charges and food and nourishment,
which requires to be enhanced in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case. As the Tribunal has not
awarded any compensation towards loss of income due to
disability, we globally grant a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the
claimant.
- 11 -
16. On re-assessing the entire oral and
documentary evidence on record, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the appellant/claimant is entitled
for just compensation under different heads as under:
Sl. Compensation Head Amount
No. in Rs.
1 Pain and sufferings 80,000.00
2 Medical expenditure 1,42,389.00
(As awarded by the Tribunal)
3 Attendants charge 20,000.00
4 Food and nourishment 20,000.00
5 Transportation charges 20,000.00
6 Loss of amenities in life 25,000.00
(as awarded by the Tribunal)
7 Loss of income due to 75,000.00
disability
Total 3,82,389.00
17. In all, the appellant/claimant is entitled to total
compensation of Rs.3,82,389/- as against Rs.2,39,589/-
awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the appellant/claimant is
entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,42,800/- with
- 12 -
interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
realization. Accordingly, we answer the point framed for
consideration partly in affirmative in favour of the
claimant.
18. For the reasons stated above, we pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The Appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The impugned judgment and award
dated 08.10.2015 passed by the VI
Additional District Judge and AMACT,
Tumkur in MVC No.1182/2012 is hereby
modified.
iii) Claimant is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.3,82,389/- as
against Rs.2,39,589/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
iv) The claimant is entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.1,40,800/- with
- 13 -
interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till the date of realization.
v) Respondent No.2/Insurance company
shall deposit the enhanced compensation
within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this judgment
with proportionate interest.
vi) On such deposit, the Tribunal is directed
to release the entire amount in favour of
the claimant.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MBM
