Karnataka High Court

Sri Govinda Naik vs Sri Praveen on 24 November, 2023

                                              -1-
                                                          NC: 2023:KHC:42503
                                                       MFA No. 7690 of 2016




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

                                            BEFORE

                        THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

                        MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7690 OF 2016

                                             (MV-I)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SRI GOVINDA NAIK
                         AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
                         S/O SADIYA NAIK,
                         R/O SCHOOL ROAD,
Digitally signed         KONI VILALGE & POST,
by SHARANYA T            KUNDAPURA TALUK,
Location: HIGH           UDUPI DISTRICT-572101.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                                                      ...APPELLANT
                             (BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)


                   AND:

                   1.    SRI PRAVEEN
                         AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
                         S/O GOVINDA POOJARY,
                         R/O H.NO.2-47/1, ASHRAYA
                         COLONY, KADEKEHITHLUBETTU,
                         BALKUR VILLAGE,
                         KUNDAPURA TALUK-576103.

                   2.    RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                         RELIANCE CENTRE, 19, WALCHAND,
                         HIRACHAND MARG,
                         BALLARD ESTATE,
                         MUMBAI-400 001
                             -2-
                                       NC: 2023:KHC:42503
                                     MFA No. 7690 of 2016




                                          ...RESPONDENTS
          (BY SRI.B.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R2
               NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.561/2015 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 ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:



                      JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for the

appellant as well as Sri B.Pradeep, learned counsel

who is representing respondent No.2. Notice to

respondent No.1 was dispensed with.

2. Challenge in this appeal is the award that was passed

by Additional Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal

at Kundapura in M.V.C No.561/2015 dated

12.08.2016.

NC: 2023:KHC:42503

3. Learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned

counsel for respondent No.2 submits that they would

produce the certified copies of medico legal

certificate and the deposition of PW-2 which are

crucial for the appeal to be decided and thus no

further record of the Tribunal is required. Record

thus produced is received.

4. The matrix of the case as could be perceived through

the award is that on 24.06.2015 at about 10.30

a.m., while the appellant was proceeding by walk on

the left side of the road SH.52 and when he reached

near Raghu bandary cutting Shop, Koni village, one

motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-20-EG-8333

which was coming from Basrur side ridden by 1st

respondent at high speed and in a rash and negligent

manner dashed against the appellant due to which

he sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately

shifted to Chinmayi Hospital, Kundapura and he

took treatment there as inpatient. The appellant

NC: 2023:KHC:42503

sustained grievous injuries and he was advised to

take complete bed rest for 12 months. The appellant

had spent lot of amount for treatment. He was

working as coolie and was earning Rs.18,000/- per

month and due to the injuries sustained he lost his

future prospects and thus respondents are at liability

to compensate.

5. The 2nd respondent though admitted coverage of

policy during the relevant period, contended that his

liability is subject to terms and conditions of the

policy. The 2nd respondent denied the happening of

accident, the aspect of negligence on part of the 1st

respondent and allied aspects and contending that

the appellant is not entitled for compensation, sought

for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Subjecting the evidence of PWs No.1 and 2, Exs. P1

to P12 and Ex.R1 to Scrutiny, the Tribunal came to a

conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a sum of

NC: 2023:KHC:42503

Rs.1,55,710/- as compensation along with interest at

the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition

till the date of realization.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of amount awarded as

compensation, the present appeal is preferred by the

claimant.

8. Making his submission with regard to the merits of

the matter, learned counsel for appellant contends

that the appellant sustained two grievous injuries

and took extensive treatment. Though PW2 who

treated the appellant gave evidence to the effect that

the injuries sustained by the appellant are grievous

in nature and that he took treatment as inpatient and

also that the appellant is disabled to work, without

considering those aspects, a meagre amount is

awarded as compensation which is unjustifiable.

Learned counsel for appellant also states that the

appellant is unable to attend his work and therefore

NC: 2023:KHC:42503

he is unable to earn anything and thus the

compensation has to be enhanced.

9. Contrary submission is made by learned counsel

appearing for 2nd respondent. Learned counsel

contends that taking into consideration all the

aspects of the case, the Tribunal awarded just

compensation and therefore the award needs no

interference.

10. As rightly contended by learned counsel for

appellant, the evidence of PW2 plays crucial role in

deciding the aspect of the compensation which can

be termed to be just and reasonable. The evidence of

PW2 is that he is working as Orthopaedic Surgeon

and Consultant at Chinmayi Hospital, Kundapura and

the petitioner was admitted in their Hospital on

24.06.2015. On examination, he was found to have

sustained head injury, fracture of Clavicle left and

laceration on scalp. CT-scan revealed Mild

NC: 2023:KHC:42503

Haemorrhage contusion at right temporal lobe of

brain which is grievous in nature and the fracture

clavicle left is also grievous in nature. He further

stated that X-ray has shown Mal-union of left Clavicle

Bone and thus the permanent disability is 12% of left

upper limb. He further stated that due to the physical

disability, the appellant has got difficulty in doing

labour activities and other kind of strenuous activities

by use of left upper limb.

11. When the award of the Tribunal is gone through, this

Court finds that though the Tribunal had discussed at

length with regard to the merits of the matter, the

Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the

appellant as Rs.6,500/- per month. The Tribunal

ought to have taken the income of the appellant as

Rs.9,000/- per month his occupation being of a

coolie. Furthermore, the petitioner who was aged

between 56 to 60 years of age by the date of the

accident would have suffered much pain and

NC: 2023:KHC:42503

suffering due to the head injury and the fracture of

Clavicle Bone which are grievous in nature. Thus, this

Court considers desirable to award compensation

accordingly.

12. When the income of the petitioner is taken as

Rs.9,000/- per month, it comes to Rs.1,08,000/- per

Annum. The appropriate multiplier of 9 if applied, it

comes to Rs.9,72,000/-. The percentage of the

disability i.e., 8% if applied, it comes to Rs.77,760/-.

Thus, the total compensation under different heads

which is just and reasonable is as under:

SL.

                  Particulars                   Amount
  No.

   1.   Compensation     for pain  and         Rs.50,000/-
        suffering for the two grievous
        injuries sustained @ 25,000/-
        each

   2.   Compensation    for  pain  and         Rs.5,000/-
        suffering for the simple injury
        sustained

   3.   Medical      expenses,     extra       Rs.18,550/-

nourishment, diet attendant and transportation charges

NC: 2023:KHC:42503

4. Loss of earnings during the laid Rs.54,000/-

down period at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per month for a period of 6 months

5. Compensation towards Rs.77,760/-

permanent disability

6. Compensation towards of loss of Rs.20,000/-

amenities in life.

Total Enhanced compensation Rs.2,25,310/-

Thus, the appeal needs to be allowed in part and

accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed in part.

The amount awarded as compensation is

enhanced from Rs.1,55,710/- to Rs.2,25,310/- (Two

Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Ten

Rupees only).