Karnataka High Court

K Manjunatha vs Mohan Kumar on 18 April, 2024

Author: Jyoti Mulimani

Bench: Jyoti Mulimani

                                           -1-
                                                         NC: 2024:KHC:15294
                                                     MFA No. 1584 of 2014
                                                     MFA No. 5063 of 2014



                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                          DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
                                         BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
                 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1584 OF 2014(MV-I)
                                      C/W
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5063 OF 2014

                IN MFA NO. 1584 OF 2014
                BETWEEN:

                BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL
                INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
                KNV COMPLEX AT 'GOLDEN HEIGHTS',
                4TH FLOOR, 4TH CROSS,
                VIDYANAGAR, TUMKUR,
                NO.1/2, 59TH 'C' CROSS,
                4TH 'M' BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
                BANGALORE-560 010.
                BY ITS MANAGER (LEGAL).
                                                               ...APPELLANT
                (BY SRI. H.S.LINGARAJU., ADVOCATE)

                AND:
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N 1.       MALIK AHMED
Location: HIGH         NOW AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA              S/O LATE MOHAMMED HAYATH,
                       R/O HEGGARE VILLAGE,
                       TUMKUR TALUK-572 101.

                2.     MOHAN KUMAR.G
                       S/O SUBBANAIK,
                       R/O NO.236, 1ST CROSS,
                       BADDIHALLI,
                       GOKULA EXTENSION (KYATHASANDA),
                       TUMKUR-572 101.
                                                            ...RESPONDENTS
                (BY SRI. ABDUL KHADAR., ADVOCATE FOR
                    SRI. MUSHTAQ AHMED., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
                    R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
                             -2-
                                            NC: 2024:KHC:15294
                                          MFA No. 1584 of 2014
                                          MFA No. 5063 of 2014



IN MFA.NO. 5063 OF 2014

BETWEEN:

MALIK AHMED
S/O LATE MOHAMMED HAYATH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDENT AT HEGGERE VILLAGE,
TUMKUR TALUK-562 121.
                                                    ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ABDULKHADAR., ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. MUSHTAQ AHMED., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   MOHAN KUMAR
     S/O SUBBANAIK,
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
     R/A NO.236, 1ST CROSS,
     BADDIHALLI, GOKULA EXTENSION,
     KYATHASANDRA.
     TUMKUR-562 122.

2.   BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     KVN COMPLEX, 4TH CROSS,
     VIDYANAGAR-562 122.
     REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. KHADAR AHMED., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    SRI. LINGARAJ.H.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

       THESE   MISCELLANEOUS      FIRST   APPEALS   ARE      FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:19.09.2013
PASSED    IN   MVC   NO.1406/2009    ON    THE   FILE   OF    THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, MACT, TUMKUR.

       THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS ARE COMING ON
FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                -3-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC:15294
                                          MFA No. 1584 of 2014
                                          MFA No. 5063 of 2014



                          JUDGMENT

Sri.Lingaraj.H.S., learned counsel for the appellant and

Sri.Abdul Khadar., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Mushtaq

Ahmed., for respondent No.1 have appeared in person.

Notice to the respondents was ordered on 28.03.2014. A

perusal of the office note depicts that respondent No.2 is

served and unrepresented. He has neither engaged the services

of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

Sri.Abdul Khadar., learned counsel on behalf of

Sri.Mushtaq Ahmed., for the appellant and Sri.Lingaraj.H.S.,

learned counsel for respondent No.2 have appeared in person.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts are these:

It is contended that on 12.03.2009 at about 5:00 pm.,

the claimant was proceeding with his friend on a motorcycle

bearing Registration No.KA-06-W-205 from Gubbi towards

Tumkur on NH-206 road. When they reached near Sri Siddartha

NC: 2024:KHC:15294

Dental College, a rider of another motorcycle bearing

Registration No.KA-06-Y-7278 came from the opposite direction

in a rash and negligent manner and his motorcycle. Due to the

impact, he fell and sustained grievous injuries. Contending that

he is entitled for compensation, the claimant filed a Claim

Petition.

In response to the notice, the respondents appeared

through their counsel and filed separate written statement

denying the petition averments. Among other grounds, they

prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition.

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed

issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The

Tribunal vide Judgment dated:19.09.2013 partly allowed the

Claim Petition and directed the Insurance company to satisfy

the award. The Insurance company and the Claimant have

assailed the Judgment of the Tribunal in these appeals on

several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of appeals.

4. Learned counsel for the respective parties have

urged several contentions.

NC: 2024:KHC:15294

Sri.Lingaraj.H.S., learned counsel for the Insurance

Company in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that

the Judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to the evidence on

record and law. He argued by saying that the Tribunal has

erred in awarding compensation. Counsel submits that viewed

from any angle, the Judgment of the Tribunal is untenable. He

therefore, submits that appropriate order may be passed.

Sri.Abdul Khadar., learned counsel for the claimant

submits that the Tribunal has erred in awarding meager

compensation under the different heads. Hence, the same is

required to be enhanced. Counsel therefore, submits that

appropriate order may be passed.

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective

parties and perused the appeal papers and also the records

with utmost care.

5. The point that requires consideration is whether the

Judgment of the Tribunal requires interference.

6. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require

reiteration. The claimant has assailed the Judgment of the

Tribunal seeking enhancement of compensation. The grounds

NC: 2024:KHC:15294

urged in the present appeal are mainly relating to the meager

compensation awarded under different heads by the Tribunal.

The Claimant has suffered pain and agony owing to the injuries

sustained in the accident.

It is noticed that the Tribunal has awarded compensation

of Rs.44,100/- (Rupees Forty Four Thousand and One Hundred

only) towards Loss of future earning capacity due to disability.

In the absence of any proof of income, the chart prepared by

the Legal Service Authority must be taken into consideration.

As per the chart, if the accident is occurred in the year 2009,

the salary of the injured must be taken as Rs.5,000/- (Rupees

Five Thousand only) per month. The age of the claimant was 32

years as on the date of accident, hence the multiplier 16 is to

be adopted.

At the time of calculation, learned counsel for the

claimant and Insurance Company jointly submits that the

Tribunal has assessed the disability at 7%. Hence, the same

may be taken into consideration in this appeal also.

NC: 2024:KHC:15294

Accordingly, amount towards loss of future earning capacity

due to disability is calculated as under:

Rs.5,000/- X 12 X 16 X 7% = Rs.67,200/-.

7. This Court deems it appropriate to reassess the

compensation as under:

1. Pain and Sufferings 30,000 + 10,000 Rs.40,000/-

2. Medical Expenses, 85,000 Rs.85,000/-

   Conveyance,       Food    &
   Nourishment              and
   attendant charges
3. Loss of income during             5,000 X 3           Rs.15,000/-
   laid up period
4. Loss of future earning             67,200             Rs.67,200/-
   capacity       due        to
   disability
   5,000 x 12 x 16 x 7%
5. Loss of amenities and 20,000 + 10,000                 Rs.30,000/-
   unhappiness
6. Future             medical             8,000          Rs.8,000/-
   expenses
                                              Total:    Rs.2,45,200/-

(Less) Compensation awarded by the -Rs.2,01,100/-

Tribunal:

Enhanced compensation awarded by Rs.44,100/-

this Court:

NC: 2024:KHC:15294

A perusal of the record depicts Mr.Malik Ahmed was riding

the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-06-W-205 and one

G.V.Manjunath was a pillion rider. The police records also

reveals that Lakshmikanth - the rider of motorcycle bearing

Registration No.KA-06-Y-7278 was charge sheeted. The

Tribunal extenso referred to the material on record and rightly

awarded compensation. The grounds urged in the appeal filed

by the Insurance Company are devoid of merits and the appeal

is liable to be rejected.

8. Hence, the following: