Karnataka High Court
Murali S. @ Murali vs M/S Ace Logistics on 4 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43598
MFA No. 2920 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2920 OF 2012(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MURALI S. @ MURALI,
S/O. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT M. MEDAHALLI, MAYASANDRA POST,
ANEKAL TALUK,ATTIBELE HOBLI,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
[
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M. BABU.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S ACE LOGISTICS,
REP. BY ITS MANAGER,
TRANSPORT NAGAR CAMPUS DINNA ROAD,
MANGO JAMSHEDPUR DISTRICT,
SINGH BUN EAST,JHARKAND- 831 012.
2. THE UNITED INIDA INSURENCE CO. LTD.,
Digitally signed
by VINUTHA B S
REPTD. BY ITS MANGER,REGIONAL OFFICE,
Location: HIGH KRUSHI BHAVAN,NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 002
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 07/07/2015)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.11.2011 PASSED IN
MVC NO.3183/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDL. SCJ &
MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43598
MFA No. 2920 of 2012
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.M.Babu, learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri.A.N.Krishnaswamy, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2. Issuance of notice to respondent No.1
was dispensed with.
2. Challenging this appeal is the award that was
passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in
MVC No.3183/2010 dated 11.11.2011. Through the
impugned award, the appellant was awarded with
compensation of Rs.1,52,000/- together with interest at
the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
realisation excluding the sum awarded towards future
medical expenses. Aggrieved by the quantum of award,
the present appeal is preferred.
3. The matrix of the case as could be perceived
through the claim petition is that on 08.12.2009 at about
4.30 p.m., while the appellant was driving a Maxi Trax
NC: 2023:KHC:43598
bearing registration No.KA-51-9842 following all traffic
rules and when he reached between coffeeday and
Vadagur gate on Kolar-Mulabagal main road, one container
lorry bearing registration No.NL-01-D-2619 which was
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came
from Kolar side and dashed against the vehicle of the
appellant due to which the appellant sustained multiple
injuries.
4. The appellant was immediately shifted to
Government hospital, Kolar and from there to NIMHANS
hospital and thereafter to Sparsha hospital, Bengaluru for
treatment. The appellant took treatment as inpatient for 5
days and underwent surgery. He spent sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical and other expenses and
due to the injuries sustained he took bed rest for 3 months
and even thereafter he is not in a position to drive the
vehicle as before. A case was registered against the driver
of the container lorry. Thus the appellant is entitled to a
sum of rupees ten lakhs as compensation.
NC: 2023:KHC:43598
5. The insurance company i.e., the respondent
No.2 objected the relief claimed. It denied the manner of
happening of accident as narrated by the appellant and
also contended that the driver of the alleged offending
vehicle was not in possession of valid and effective driving
license to drive the said vehicle at the time of alleged
accident and thus he is not liable to pay any
compensation. The insurance company also stated that the
owner and insurer of the vehicle in which the appellant
was travelling are necessary and proper parties for the
claim petition and thus the claim application is required to
be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. Denying
the aspects of hospitalization and treatment as narrated
by the appellant in his pleadings, the insurance company
stated that the amount claimed is imaginary, excessive
and highly exorbitant. Finally he sought for dismissal of
the claim petition.
6. Subjecting the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, Rw1,
Exs.P1 to P11 and Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 to scrutiny, the
NC: 2023:KHC:43598
Tribunal came to a conclusion that the appellant is entitled
to a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- as compensation but not rupees
ten lakhs as claimed.
7. Making his submission with regard to the merits
of the matter and the entitlement of the appellant, on this
day learned counsel for the appellant states that the
appellant sustained several grievous injuries due to the
accident and he lost his earnings in toto. The Tribunal had
taken the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.4,000/-
p.m. which is highly unjustifiable as the appellant was a
driver by profession. Learned counsel contends that the
Tribunal ought to have taken monthly income of the
appellant as Rs.10,000/- p.m., considering his occupation.
Learned counsel further states that the amount that is
awarded towards conveyance and attendant charges is
also on lower side. Learned counsel seeks to enhance the
amount awarded as compensation as prayed for.
8. The submission made by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.2-insurance company is
NC: 2023:KHC:43598
that the Tribunal taking into consideration all the aspects
of the case including the nature of the injuries sustained
and hospitalization, has awarded just compensation which
needs no interference. Learned counsel for respondent
No.2 brought to the notice of this Court the order that was
rendered in MFA No.3098/2012, which was preferred by
the insurance company regarding the same award.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that in light of
the order that is rendered by this Court in the said appeal,
the present appeal needs no consideration.
9. Denying the said proposition, learned counsel
for the appellant states that in MFA No.3098/2012, the
plea of the appellant herein was not taken into
consideration. Learned counsel states that when the
insurance company challenged the award denying its
liability, this Court passed judgment reducing the rate of
interest from 8% p.a. to 6% p.a. Learned counsel states
that as this appeal is preferred for enhancement of
compensation, the observations made in MFA
NC: 2023:KHC:43598
No.3098/2012 needs no consideration except with regard
to the interest payable.
10. There is no denial of the fact that the appellant
sustained 4 grievous injuries and one simple injury. The
nature of injuries sustained is established by the appellant
by producing the evidence of Pw.2 and also Ex.P4 and
Ex.P8. The evidence of Pw.2 is that on 09.12.2009 the
appellant was got admitted in their hospital i.e., Sparsh
hospital, Bengaluru with alleged history of road traffic
accident. Pw.2 stated that the appellant was found with
head injury with multiple sutured wounds over the face
and right shoulder. A fracture of right clavicle, a fracture of
body and spinus process of right acapula, fracture of 1st
and 2nd ribs of right chest and anterior wedge compression
fracture of D11 and D12 vertebrae were found. Pw.2 also
stated that appellant was operated for right clavicle with
plate and screws and other injuries were treated
conservatively and he was discharged on 12.12.2009 with
an advice of follow up treatment. Pw.2 also stated that the
NC: 2023:KHC:43598
disability was assessed and the disability was found to be
45.8% for right upper limb. He further stated that the
appellant needs another surgery for removal of implant
which may cost around Rs.30,000/-. Though Pw.2 was
subjected to cross examination nothing could be elicited
through him to discredit his testimony with regard to the
nature of injuries sustained and the aspect of
hospitalization.
11. The contents of Ex.P4 - wound certificate goes
to show that multiple surgically sutured wounds present
over the face, right shoulder and right upper back are
simple in nature and that the fracture of right clavicle,
fracture of scapula, fracture of 1st and 2nd ribs of right
side, anterior wedge compression fracture of D11 and D12
vertebra are grievous in nature. The contents of Ex.P8-
discharge summary goes to show that the head injury as
well as fracture scapula and fracture vertebrae were
treated conservatively. However, for the injury to right
clavicle, a surgery was done. The said document also goes
NC: 2023:KHC:43598
to show that the appellant was admitted at Sparsh hospital
for treatment on 09.12.2009 and he was discharged on
12.12.2009.
12. The occupation of the appellant is not in dispute
i.e., he is driver by profession. The Tribunal at paragraph
11 of the impugned award discussed about the injuries
and held that an amount of Rs.65,000/- is liable to be
awarded as compensation under the head pain and
suffering. So far as medical expenses is concerned, at
paragraph 12 of the order held that the amount entitled to
is Rs.40,000/-. At paragraph 13 of the order it gave its
opinion that sum of Rs.10,000/- is liable to be awarded
towards future medical expenses. The Tribunal at
paragraph 14 of the award expressed its opinion that the
income of the appellant is required to be taken as
Rs.4,000/- p.m. and further expressing an opinion that he
would not have attended his duty for a period of 3 months,
awarded Rs.12,000/- as compensation towards loss of
income during the period of treatment. Also the Tribunal
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43598
expressed its opinion that a sum of Rs.5,000/- is liable to
be awarded towards conveyance, attendant and
nourishment charges and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of
amenities in life and future unhappiness. The amount
awarded as compensation is under challenge.
13. Having considered the nature of injuries
sustained the treatment taken, this Court is of the
considered view that the amount thus awarded is slightly
on lower side. Having regard to the occupation of the
appellant i.e., driver by profession, the Tribunal ought to
have taken a sum at Rs.6,500/- p.m. as his monthly
income in light of the fact that the accident occurred in the
year 2010. Likewise, as the appellant was successful in
establishing that he sustained 4 grievous injuries and 1
simple injury due to the accident, this Court is of the view
that he would not had been in a position to attend his
normal activities and his duty atleast for a period of 6
months. Therefore, loss of earnings if taken at the rate of
Rs.6,500/- p.m. for a period of 6 months comes to
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43598
Rs.39,000/-. Further having regard to the gravity of the
injuries sustained the compensation awarded towards pain
and suffering is also on lower side. Therefore, this Court
considers desirable to enhance the compensation under
each heads which would be proportionate to the loss
sustained. Hence, the appellant is entitled for
compensation under following heads:
Sl. Description Amount
No
1 Pain and sufferings
a)for 1 simple injury -
Rs.3,000/-
Rs.83,000
b)for 4 grievous injuries -
Rs.20,000/- each i.e.,
Rs.80,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs.40,000
3 Future medical expenses Rs.10,000
4 Loss of earnings for a
period of 6 months @ Rs.39,000
Rs.6,500/- p.m.
5 Conveyance, attendant,
food and nourishment Rs.10,000
charges
6 Loss of amenities in life
Rs.20,000/-
and future unhappiness
Total Compensation Rs.2,02,000
14. Hence, the following:
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43598
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The compensation awarded by Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal through orders in MVC
No.3183/2010 dated 11.11.2011 is enhanced
from Rs.1,52,000/- to Rs.2,02,000/-.
(iii) The entire amount shall carry interest at
the rate of 6% p.a. as per the decision of this
Court in MFA No.3098/2012 dated 27.04.2016.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NS
CT:TSM
