Narasappa S/O Tippaanna vs Dattareya S/O Srinivas ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 988 Kant

                               1       MFA No.201899/2015




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 17TH OF JANUARY, 2023

                           BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

                MFA No.201899/2015 (MV)
Between:

Narasappa s/o Tippanna
Age: 37 Years, Occ: Coolie & Agriculture
R/o Duppalli Village
Tq. And Dist. Yadgir
                                                  ... Appellant
(By Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, Advocate)

And:

1.     Dattatreya S/o Srinivas Sangolligi
       Age: 42 Years, Occ: Business
       R/o Raichur Road, Saidapur
       Tq. And Dist. Yadgiri

2.     United India Ins Co. Ltd.
       Jawali Complex, Super Market
       Gulbarga, Through its
       Divisional Manager
                                              ...Respondents
(Sri Manvendra Reddy, Advocate for R2;
R1 served)

       This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act praying to allow the
appeal    and   modify   the   judgment     and   award   dated
                                  2     MFA No.201899/2015




15.11.2014 in MVC No.212/2013 passed by the Member,
M.A.C.T.-II, Yadgiri by enhancing the compensation as
claimed in the claim petition.


      This appeal coming on for Admission this day, the
Court delivered the following:


                        JUDGMENT

Not being satisfied with quantum of

compensation granted by the Tribunal, appellant, who

is the petitioner has come up with this appeal under

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Act' for short).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties

are referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that on

16.03.2013 at about 5-40 p.m., the petitioner was

proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration

No.KA-33-K-2527 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

offending vehicle') as pilling rider. It was ridden by

one Sabanna in a high speed, in rash or negligent

manner and dashed against a parked auto rickshaw

bearing registration No.AP-22-X-5826. In the said

accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries

resulting in permanent partial disability. As owner

and insurer of the offending, the respondents are

liable to pay the compensation.

4. Though duly served respondent No.1

remained ex parte.

5. Respondent No.2 appeared and filed

written statement disputing the age, occupation and

nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and

that the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent

driving of the offending vehicle.

6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal

framed necessary issues.

7. The petitioner got himself examined as

P.W.1 and the doctor as P.W.2. He has relied upon

Ex.P.1 to 58.

8. Respondent No.2 has not led any oral or

documentary evidence.

9. Vide the impugned judgment and award,

Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of

Rs.3,79,490/- with interest at 6% p.a. as detailed

below:

  Sl.                 Heads                  Amount
 No.

1. Towards pain and suffering Rs.0,35,000/-

2. Towards loss of amenities Rs.0,25,000/-

3. Towards medical expenses Rs.0,71,090/-

4. Towards Attendant Charges Rs.0,06,200/-

5. Towards loss of income Rs.0,06,200/-

during course of treatment

6. Towards removal of nail & Rs.0,20,000/-

rod

7. Towards loss of future Rs.2,16,000/-

income Total Rs.3,79,490/-

10. During the course of arguments, learned

counsel for the petitioner submitted that having

regard to the nature of injuries sustained and period

of treatment, the compensation granted by the

Tribunal under all the heads is on the lower side and it

requires enhancement.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for

respondent No.2 has supported the impugned

judgment and award and sought for dismissal of the

appeal.

12. As evident from Ex.P.2 coupled with the

testimony of P.W.1 and 2, the petitioner has sustained

fracture of right leg patella bone, tibia and fibula and

three simple injuries. Taking into consideration the

same, the Tribunal has granted compensation in a

sum of Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering and

Rs.25,000- towards loss of amenities. Based on

medical bills, The Tribunal has granted compensation

in a sum of Rs.71,090/-. Towards attendant charges

and loss of income during laid up period, it has

granted Rs.6,200/- each. For future medical expenses,

the Tribunal has granted Rs.20,000/-.

13. Based on the documents, the Tribunal has

considered the age of the petitioner as 38 years and

15 as multiplier. In the absence of evidence, the

Tribunal has considered the income of the petitioner

as Rs.6,000/- p.m. notionally. Since the accident is of

the year 2013, based on minimum wages, it ought to

have been taken at Rs.7,000/- p.m. However, the

Tribunal has not added loss of future prospects.

Based on the testimony of P.W.2, the disability is

taken at 20%. With these components, the Tribunal

has quantified loss of future income at Rs.2,16,000/-.

Taking into consideration the entire material on

record, I am of the considered opinion that granting

the petitioner global compensation in sum of

Rs.75,000/- would meet the ends of justice, in

addition to the compensation already granted by the

Tribunal and accordingly, I proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The Appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The appellant is entitled for global

compensation in a sum of Rs.75,000/- in addition to

the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal

together with interest at 6% p.a.

(iii) Respondent No.2/Insurance company shall

deposit the compensation amount together with

interest within a period of six weeks from the date of

this order. (minus compensation amount already

paid/deposited)

(iv) Vide order dated 09.07.2019, the petitioner

is not entitled to interest for delay of 279 days on the

enhanced compensation.

(v) Send a copy of this order to the Tribunal.

Sd/-

JUDGE RSP