Karnataka High Court
Mallikarjun Bichali vs Mehaboob And Ors on 6 July, 2023
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:4950
MFA No. 200098 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200098 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MALLIKARJUN BICHALI S/O HUSSAINAPPA,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: CLEANER CUM HELPER,
FOR OPERATION OF VEHICLE NO.AP-21/Y-2525,
R/O ELEBICHALI VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: RAICHUR-585401.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI BABU H.METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MEHABOOB S/O HUSSAINSAB,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O GHOSH HOSPITAL ROAD, ADONI,
DIST: KURNOOL (AP)-585101.
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
Location: HIGH
2. LINGAnna K.S/O K.NARASAPPA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS & OWNER OF LORRY
NO.AP-21/Y-2525, R/O HOUSE NO.1/39,
DIBBANADODDI, MANTRALAYAM,
TQ: ADONI, DIST : KURNOOL(AP)-585101.
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
G5, 2ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-300001.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:4950
MFA No. 200098 of 2018
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, Advocate4 for R3,
Notice to R1 and R2 dispensed with vide order dated
10.12.2020)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 18.11.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.623/2015
BY THE II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL.
MACT, RAICHUR AND ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM
RS.2,13,000/- WITH 6% INTEREST TO RS.12,60,000/- WITH
12 INTEREST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been
filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment
dated 18.11.2017 passed by II Addl. District & Sessions
Judge and Addl. MACT, Raichur in MVC No.623/2015,
wherein granted a compensation of `2,13,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 23.10.2010 at about 9.30 a.m.
the claimant was travelling in the lorry bearing Reg.
No.AP-21/Y-2525, as a cleaner and when the lorry came
near the office of Grampanchayat Hirekotenekal on Manvi-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:4950
MFA No. 200098 of 2018
Sindhanur road, the driver of the lorry has driven in a rash
and negligent manner, lost control over the same, it was
turned turtle and accident was taken place. As a result,
the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was
hospitalized.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166
of the Act seeking compensation of `12,60,000/- with
interest. It was pleaded that he spent huge amount
towards medical expenses, conveyance charges, etc. It
was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on
account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle by its driver.
4. On service of notice, the respondents 2 and 3
appeared through counsel and filed written statement in
which the averments made in the petition were denied. It
was pleaded that accident was not due to rash and
negligent driving the lorry by its driver, due to which the
police have registered a false case to help the claimant.
Respondent No.3 has paid compensation to the respondent
NC: 2023:KHC-K:4950
MFA No. 200098 of 2018
No.2 towards vehicle damages. If the claimant is entitled,
respondent No.3 alone is liable.
5. Respondent No.3 contends that there is a delay
in lodging the complaint as the false complaint was lodged
after due deliberation and discussion. The offending lorry
was registered in the office of ARTO, Kurnool, permitted to
run in AP, permit was valid till 23.11.2014 and permit was
only to play on NH and SH in the state of Karnataka with
deviation up to 30 kms of either side from the point of said
route including Bidar corridor, permit condition was
violated. It was further pleaded that the claim petition filed
under Section 166 of the M.V.Act is not maintainable as
the claimant is claiming to be the cleaner and his claim
comes under the Employees Compensation Act and in fact
he was proceeding s an unauthorized passenger. It was
further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed
by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for
dismissal of the petition.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:4950
MFA No. 200098 of 2018
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded
the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1
and Dr.V.Shridhar Reddy was examined as PW-2 and got
exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P.14. On behalf
of the respondents, Legal officer was examined as RW.1
and the Driver as RW.2 and got exhibited document
namely Ex.R1-Policy. The Claims Tribunal, by the
impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took
place on account of rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the
claimant sustained injuries.
7. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is
entitled to a compensation of `2,13,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the respondent
N.3 to deposit the compensation amount along with
interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been
filed.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:4950
MFA No. 200098 of 2018
8. Sri Babu H.Metagudda, learned counsel for the
claimant has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, at the time of accident the claimant was aged
about 48 years and he was doing cleaner work and
earning `6,000/- per month. Due to the accident he has
suffered grievous injuries.
9. Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor
as PW-2. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the
claimant has suffered disability of 20% to whole body. But
the Tribunal has taken the whole body disability at 7%,
which is on the lower side.
Lastly, due to the accident the claimant has
sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for
a period of 15 days. Even after discharge from the
hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular
work. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment.
Considering the same, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and
NC: 2023:KHC-K:4950
MFA No. 200098 of 2018
sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower
side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel
Sri Subhash Mallapur for the Insurance Company has
raised following counter contentions:
11. Firstly, the claimant has claimed that he has
suffered grievous injuries due to the accident, the Tribunal
considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and
evidence of the doctor, has rightly assessed the whole
body disability at 7%.
Secondly, considering the injuries sustained by the
claimant and considering the evidence of the Doctor and
also the age and avocation of the claimant, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of
'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other
incidental expenses are just and reasonable and it does
not call for interference.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:4950
MFA No. 200098 of 2018
12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
13. It is not in dispute that the claimant has
sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident
occurred on 23.10.2010, due to rash and negligent driving
of the offending lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-21/Y-2525 by its
driver.
The claimant claims that due to the accident he has
suffered injuries to right side flail chest thorax and
comminuted fracture of left throchantor and the disability
is due to fracture of left thorax.
14. The claimant has examined the Doctor as PW.2.
The Doctor has assessed the disability of 20%. Therefore,
taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and
injuries mentioned in the wound certificate as well as the
disability certificate, I am of the opinion that the disability
to the whole body is assessed at 15%. The Tribunal has
rightly assessed the monthly income of the claimant as
`6,000/- per month.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:4950
MFA No. 200098 of 2018
15. The claimant is aged about 44 years at the
time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age
group is '13'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for
compensation of `1,40,400/- (6,000*12*13*15%) on
account of 'loss of future income'.
16. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered
the above said injuries and he was inpatient for a period of
15 days. He has suffered lot of pain during the treatment
and has suffer discomfort and unhappiness throughout his
life, considering the evidence of the Doctor and the nature
of the injuries, I am inclined to enhance the compensation
towards loss of amenities from `5,000/- to `25,000/-.
17. The nature of injuries suggests that the
claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a
period of three months. I am inclined to enhance the
compensation towards loss of income during laid up period
from `15,000/- to `18,000/- and also towards
transportation charges from `5,000/- to `10,000/-.
Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:4950
MFA No. 200098 of 2018
awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and
reasonable.
18. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following
compensation:
As awarded As awarded
Compensation under by the by this
different Heads Tribunal (`) Court (`)
Transportation 5,000/- 10,000/-
Medical Expenses 66,487/- 66,487/-
Food, attendant and 15,000/- 15,000/-
nourishment charges
Loss of income during 6,000/- 18,000/-
laid off period
Loss of future income 65,520/- 1,40,400/-
Pain and suffering 50,000/- 50,000/-
Loss of amenities 5,000/- 25,000/-
Total 2,13,007/- 3,24,887/-
19. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of
`1,11,887/- (3,24,887-2,13,007) which is rounded of
`1,12,000/-.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:4950
MFA No. 200098 of 2018
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation amount along with interest @ 6%
p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date
of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
