Karnataka High Court
Shri.Maruti Shamrao Jadhav vs Shri.Anandkumar Shantinath ... on 4 July, 2023
Bench: M.G.Umaj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6705
MFA No. 103579 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103579/2015 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHRI MARUTI SHAMRAO JADHAV,
AGE:31 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
R/O:H.NO:183, PATIL GALLI, KHASBAG,
OLD P. B. ROAD, BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GEETHA K. M. @ PAWAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI ANANDKUMAR SHANTINATH SHETTY,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O: SOMWARPETH PATIL GALLI,
RAIBAG-591397, DIST:BELAGAVI,
(OWNER OF TATA LPT TRUCK
BEARING REG NO.KA-23/B-1151)
Digitally
signed by
ROHAN 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
HADIMANI
T 1ST FLOOR, MAHAVEEFR CHAMBERS,
ASHOK NAGAR, NIPPANI,
REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI.
(INSURER OF TATA LPT TRUCK BEARING REG NO.KA-
23/B-1151 UNDER POLICY NO.610
202/13/630005779 COVERING THE PERIOD FROM
27.9.2013 TO 27.6.2014.
3. SHYAM INDUSTRIAL SERVICE,
GROUND FLOOR, PLOT NO.U-1 PHASE I, VEENA
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, SALCETE VARNA,
GOA-2403722.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6705
MFA No. 103579 of 2015
(OWNER OF TRAX CRUISER BEARING
REG NO.GA-08/U-8131).
4. THE NEW INDIA ASSURZNCE CO. LTD.,
MADAGAON DIVISION OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
D.LOYOLA ROAD, MADAGAON, GOA-403601
(INSURER OF TRAX CRUISER BEARING
REG NO.GA-08/U-8131 UNDER POLICY
NO.141400311 30100036085 COVERING THE
PERIOD FROM 15.2.2014 TO 14.2.2015.
5. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, MUJAWAR ARCADE,
CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI.
(INSURER OF TATA LTP TRUCK REG NO.KA-23/B-
1151 UNDER POLICY NO.472502/31/2014/4557
COVERING THE PERIOD FROM 31.10.2013 TO
30.10.2014).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M. M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI S.S. JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH;
SRI S.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 11.09.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.1228/2014 ON THE
FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6705
MFA No. 103579 of 2015
JUDGMENT
The claimant in MVC No.1228/2014 on the file of the IX
Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT,
Belgaum, (henceforth referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity),
is seeking enhancement of compensation awarded at
Rs.3,09,650/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., vide
judgment and award dated 11.09.2015, directing respondent
No.5 being insurer of the offending vehicle to deposit the same
within two months.
Parties shall be referred to as per their ranking before
the Tribunal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the claimant has
filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act in MVC No.1228/2014 before the Tribunal claiming
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road
traffic accident. It is contended by the claimant that on
16.03.2014, at about 3.45 p.m., when he was sitting infront of
Shoukat Ibrahim Mulla garage, the truck bearing registration
No.KA-23/B-1151 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner, came from Chinchili side in high speed, dashed to the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6705
MFA No. 103579 of 2015
tempo crusher bearing registration No.GA-08/U-8131 parked
by the side of the road. The said vehicle dashed to the
telephone pole and also to the claimant. As a result, the
claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was
shifted to the Government Hospital for first aid treatment and
thereafter to KLE's Hospital, Belgaum, where he had taken
treatment as inpatient by spending huge amount. The
petitioner was aged 30 years and was a mechanic. He was
earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. Since the accident had occurred due
to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the
claimant suffered permanent disability. Therefore, respondent
No.1 being the owner of the vehicle in question and respondent
No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle are liable to pay
compensation. Hence, prayed for allowing the claim petition.
3. Respondents have denied the claim of the claimant
by filing written statement and contested the matter.
4. On the basis of these pleadings, the Tribunal
framed the following issues.
1. "Whether the petitioner proves that on
16.03.2014, at about 3.45 p.m., on Chinchalli-
Raibag raod when the petitioner was sitting
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6705
MFA No. 103579 of 2015
infront of garage of Shoukat Ibrahim Mulla for
repair of his vehicle, at that time, the driver of
truck bearing No.KA-23/B-1151 drove the same in
a rash and negligent manner with great speed and
dashed to the parked Tempo Cruiser bearing
No.GA-08-U-8131 and thereby both the vehicles
dashed to the telephone pole which fell on the
petitioner and as a result of it, he sustained
grievous injuries?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so what amount?
3. What order or award?"
5. The claimant examined himself as PW-1, examined
PW-2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 in support of his
contention. Respondents have not chosen to examine any
witness. The Tribunal after taking into consideration all the
materials on record, came to the conclusion that the claimant is
entitled for compensation of Rs.3,09,650/- with interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. It is also held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, while the
claim against respondents No.3 and 4 was rejected.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6705
MFA No. 103579 of 2015
6. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is before this Court
seeking enhancement of compensation.
7. Heard Smt. Geetha K.M., learned counsel for the
appellant/claimant and Sri M.M.Patil, learned counsel for
respondent No.1, Sri S.S.Joshi, learned counsel for respondent
No.2, Sri S.V.Yaji, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and
Smt.Sharmila M. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that
the accident had occurred in the year 2014. The Tribunal has
taken the income of the claimant only at Rs.7,000/- p.m. In
view of the Guidelines issued for settling the dispute before
Lok-adalath, the income of the claimant is to be taken at
Rs.7,500/- p.m. Even though the Disability Certificate as per
Ex.P12 is produced, the Tribunal has taken the percentage of
disability only at 13%. Further, the compensation awarded
under the head 'loss of future income' and the compensation
towards 'attendant and conveyance charges' are also required
to be enhanced considerably. Therefore, prays for allowing the
appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6705
MFA No. 103579 of 2015
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5
opposing the appeal submitted that the Tribunal has taken into
consideration all the materials on record and has arrived at
right conclusion. There are no reasons to interfere with the
same. Hence, prays for dismissing the appeal with cost.
10. Perused the material on record including the trial
Court records.
11. The point that arises for my consideration is:
"Whether the impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal calls for interference?"
My answer to the above point is 'partly in the affirmative'
for the following;
REASONS
12. The factum of the accident is not in dispute.
Respondent No.5 being the insurer of the offending truck has
not challenged the finding of the Tribunal. The date of the
accident is 16.03.2014. Even though the claimant has
produced the salary certificate as per Ex.P9, the author of the
same is not examined. In the absence of any other material to
prove the income of the claimant, the Guidelines issued for
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6705
MFA No. 103579 of 2015
settling the dispute before the Lok-adalath may have to be
taken into consideration. Accordingly, the income of the
claimant is taken at Rs.7,500/- p.m. Since the claimant was
aged 30 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate
multiplier applicable is '16'. The claimant has produced the
disability certificate as per Ex.P12. The doctor assessed the
disability at 40%. The tribunal has taken it as 13% to the
whole body. There is no reason to interfere with the same.
13. The claimant is entitled for compensation of
Rs.1,87,200/- (7,500X12X16X13/100) under the head 'loss
of future income'. Similarly the claimant was admitted to the
hospital on 16.03.2014 and discharged on 22.03.2014.
Therefore, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.22,500/-
(7,500X3) towards 'loss of income during laid up period'
and a sum of Rs.8,000/- is awarded towards 'attendant's
charges'. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under
other heads are found to be reasonable. Hence, I do not find
any reason to interfere with the same.
14. Thus, the claimant is entitled for total compensation
under various heads as under:
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6705
MFA No. 103579 of 2015
Sl. Particulars Amount
No.
1. Pain & suffering 45,000.00
2. Medicine and Hospital charges 40,897.00
3. Nourishment charges 2,000.00
4. Attendant's and conveyance 8,000.00
charges
5. Loss of income during laid up 22,500.00
period
6. Loss of future income 1,87,200.00
7. Loss of amenities 30,000.00
Total 3,35,597.00
Amount awarded by the 3,09,617.00
Tribunal
Enhanced Compensation 25,980.00
15. For the foregoing reasons, I answer the above point
'partly in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The Appeal is allowed-in-part with costs.
The judgment and award dated 11.09.2015 passed in
M.V.C. No.1228/2014 on the file of the IX Additional District &
Sessions Judge, MACT, Belgaum, is modified, holding that the
claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,35,597/-
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6705
MFA No. 103579 of 2015
as against Rs.3,09,617/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest
at 6% p.a.
Office to draw award accordingly.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the
Tribunal along with trial Court records and a copy of this
judgment, forthwith.
SD/-
JUDGE
PN
