Mahabala Ganiga vs K C Michel
2023 Latest Caselaw 9796 Kant

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 9796 Kant
Judgement Date : 8 December, 2023

Karnataka High Court

Mahabala Ganiga vs K C Michel on 8 December, 2023

                                            -1-
                                                           NC: 2023:KHC:44708
                                                     MFA No. 6255 of 2013




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

                                          BEFORE
                     THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6255 OF 2013(MV-I)

                   BETWEEN:

                   MAHABALA GANIGA
                   AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
                   S/O. MANJAYYA GANIGA,
                   R/O JEDDINAMANE, NUJADY VILLAGE,
                   KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT,
                   SINCE THE APPELLANT IS BED RIDDEN
                   AND NOT IN A SOUND MIND HE IS
                   REPRESENTED BY HIS DAUGHTER
                   SMT. SUSHEELA,
                   AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
                   W/O LAXMANA,
                   R/O JEDDINAMANE,NUJADY VILLAGE,
                   KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-575101.
                                                                 ...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by VINUTHA B S     (BY SMT. SHAMITHA B., ADVOCATE FOR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF           SRI. VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT M.,ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA


                   AND:

                   K. C. MICHEL,
                   MAJOR,
                   S/O. CHACKO MATHEW,
                   NAIKODYU HOUSE, JADKAL POST,
                   KUNDAPURA TALUK,UDUPI DISTRICT-575 410.
                                                               ...RESPONDENT
                   (RESPONDENT SERVED)
                               -2-
                                           NC: 2023:KHC:44708
                                        MFA No. 6255 of 2013




    THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.3.2013 PASSED IN
MVC NO.910/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

Heard Smt.Shamitha B., who represented Sri.Vijaya

Krishna Bhat M., learned counsel on record for the appellant.

Despite service of notice, none appears for respondent.

2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is

rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kundapura, in

MVC No.910/2012 dated 19.03.2013. The appeal is by the

claimant.

3. The matrix of the case as could be perceived

through the claim application is that on 28.07.2012 at about

5.30 p.m. while the appellant was walking on the left side of

the road and when he reached near Gopinatha Hospital,

Vandsepete, one motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA.20

X.9882 which came from Kundapura side driven by its rider in a

NC: 2023:KHC:44708

rash and negligent manner dashed against the appellant from

backside, due to which the appellant sustained major injuries.

4. The appellant was immediately shifted to Vinaya

Hospital, Kundapura and from there to Adarsha Hospital, Udupi

for treatment. An amount of Rs.80,000/- was spent towards

medical expenses besides Rs.45,000/- towards extra

nourishment and attendant charges. Also a sum of Rs.30,000/-

was incurred as conveyance charges.

5. The appellant was working as a coolie and was

earning Rs.9,000/- per month. However, due to the injuries

sustained, he is unable to work. Thus, the respondent is at

liability to pay a sum of Rs.26,55,000/- as compensation.

6. The Tribunal by the impugned order awarded a sum

of Rs.1,47,200/- as compensation.

7. Making her submission with regard to the merits of

the matter, learned counsel for the appellant states that due to

the injuries sustained, the appellant became completely

disabled to work. To establish the nature of the injuries

sustained, the appellant examined PW2 and also produced the

NC: 2023:KHC:44708

relevant record. However, the amount awarded as

compensation under different heads is disproportionate to the

nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant and therefore,

the appellant preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel

ultimately seeks for enhancement of compensation.

8. As per the contents of Ex.P6- Wound Certificate the

appellant sustained head injury with left frontal acute subdural

Haematoma and also sustained fracture of left iliac bone. It is

mentioned that both those injuries are grievous in nature.

9. Coming to the evidence of PW2, he deposed that he

is working as Orthopedic Surgeon at Kundapura and he is a

visiting Orthopedic Surgeon to Manjunatha Hospital,

Kundapura. As per the Discharge Summary, Wound Certificate

issued by Adarsha Hospital, Udupi, the appellant was admitted

at Adarsha Hospital, Udupi with road traffic accident and he

sustained four grievous injuries and he took treatment at

Adarsha Hospital from 28.07.2012 to 01.08.2012. He further

stated that on 19.02.2013 he examined the appellant and

found that he has 20% permanent disability to his left lower

limb. However, it is not the version of PW2 that he treated the

NC: 2023:KHC:44708

appellant or that he worked at Adarsha Hospital, Udupi, which

found the injuries mentioned by him.

10. As per the contents of Ex.P6 the appellant sustained

only two grievous injuries. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of

Rs.40,000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering,

Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities in life, Rs.36,000/-

towards loss of income, Rs.27,200/- towards medical expenses,

Rs.3,000/- towards conveyance charges, Rs.6,000/- towards

food and extra nourishment charges, Rs.10,000/- towards

attendant charges and Rs.5,000/- towards future medical

expenses.

11. Considering the occupation of the appellant, the

Tribunal took the income of the appellant as Rs.3,000/- per

month. This Court is of the view that, the said sum is grossly

low. Having regard to the fact that the accident occurred in the

year 2012, the nominal income of the appellant by the said

time is taken as Rs.5,000/- per month. Considering the nature

of injuries sustained, the just compensation which the appellant

is entitled to is as under:

NC: 2023:KHC:44708

Sl. Description Amount No Rs.

 1      Compensation for pain and
        suffering   for    the   two              50,000
        grievous injuries sustained
 2      Compensation for loss of
                                                  30,000
        amenities in life
 3      Loss of earnings during laid
        up period i.e. for a period
                                                  60,000
        of 12 months at the rate of
        Rs.5,000/- per month
 4      Medical expenses                          27,200
 5      For conveyance                             3,000
 6      Food        and         extra
                                                   6,000
        nourishment
 7      Attendant charges                         15,000
 7      Future medical expenses                    5,000

        Total Compensation                  Rs.1,96,200

 12.    Thus, the following


                    ORDER


 (i) The appeal is allowed in part.


 (ii)   The   compensation      awarded     by   the   Motor