Karnataka High Court

Chidananda vs Siddalingaiah on 1 April, 2024

Author: Jyoti Mulimani

Bench: Jyoti Mulimani

                                                  -1-
                                                               NC: 2024:KHC:13176
                                                           MFA No. 9520 of 2013




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024

                                               BEFORE
                              THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9520 OF 2013(MV-I)
                      BETWEEN:
                      CHIDANANDA
                      S/O VENKATESH,
                      AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
                      R/AT C/O NAGARAJU,
                      NO.15/2, JALAJA BUIDLING,
                      1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN,
                      6TH CROSS, RAMESHNAGAR,
                      BANGALORE-560 037.
                      APPELLANT IS MINOR REP. BY
                      HIS FATHER VENKATESH.G.K.,
                      AND ALSO R/AT RAILWAY GOLLAHALLI,
                      NELAMANGALA,
                      BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 127.
                                                                     ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. KALYAN.R., ADVOCATE)
                      AND:
Digitally signed by   1.    SIDDALINGAIAH
THEJASKUMAR N
                            S/O NANJAPPA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                    AGED MAJOR,
KARNATAKA                   R/AT NO.113,
                            MIDDLE SCHOOL ROAD,
                            THYAMAGONDLU, NELAMANGALA
                            BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 127.

                      2.    THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
                            UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                            6TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN,
                            HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-02.
                                                             ...RESPONDENTS
                      (R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
                        BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                                   -2-
                                                 NC: 2024:KHC:13176
                                            MFA No. 9520 of 2013




     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.01.2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.4165/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII
ACMM AND XXIV ASCJ, MACT, BANGALORE.

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                             JUDGMENT

Sri.Kalyan.R., learned counsel for the appellant and

Sri.Janardhan Reddy., learned counsel for respondent No.2

have appeared in person.

2. Notice to the respondents was ordered on

26.06.2014. A perusal of the office note depicts that

respondent No.1 is served and unrepresented. He has neither

engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as

party in person.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

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

4. The brief facts are these:

NC: 2024:KHC:13176

On the 9th day of June 2012 at about 9:00 am., the

claimant was riding his TVS XL bearing Registration No.KA-52-

H-1961 on the left side of Byranayakanahalli Turn,

Thyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru. At that

time, a TATA Sumo bearing Registration No.KA-03-AA-306

came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant. Due

to the impact, he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he

was shifted to Mathrushree Hospital, Nelamangala, wherein he

took treatment as an inpatient for ten days and underwent

surgery. Contending that he is entitled for compensation, the

claimant filed claim petition.

In response to the notice, the first respondent remained

absent before the Tribunal and hence, he was placed ex-parte.

The second respondent Insurance Company appeared through

its counsel and filed written statement denying the petition

averments. Among other grounds, it 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:18.01.2013 allowed the petition

NC: 2024:KHC:13176

in part and concluded that the claimant has attributed 10% of

negligence to the accident and awarded compensation of

Rs.2,09,700/- (Rupees Two Lakh Nine Thousand Seven

Hundred only) with 6% interest from the date of petition till the

date of deposit of compensation amount in the Tribunal.

5. Learned counsel for the respective parties have

urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on

behalf of the respective parties and perused the appeal papers

and also the records with utmost care.

6. The following points would arise for consideration:

1. Whether the claimant is entitled for enhanced

compensation?

2. Whether the Tribunal is justified in concluding

that the claimant has attributed 10% negligence

to the accident?

7. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require

reiteration. The Claimant's appeal is one for enhancement of

compensation and modification of the judgment. The grounds

urged in the present appeal are mainly relating to the meager

compensation awarded under different heads by the Tribunal.

NC: 2024:KHC:13176

The Claimant has suffered pain and agony owing to the injuries

sustained in the accident in question.

The compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand

only) towards Pain and Sufferings and Rs.86,000/- (Rupees

Eighty Six Thousand only) towards Medical expenses remains

intact.

This Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.21,000/-

(Rupees Twenty One Thousand only) towards loss of income

during the period of treatment as against Rs.12,000/- (Rupees

Twelve Thousand only).

The compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty

Thousand only) towards Future medical expenses remains

intact.

It is noticed that the Tribunal has awarded compensation

of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) towards Loss of

future earning capacity due to disability. It is contended that

the claimant was working as Milk vendor and was earning a

sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month.

However, there is no proof of income. In the absence of any

proof of income, the chart prepared by the Legal Service

NC: 2024:KHC:13176

Authority must be taken into consideration. As per the chart, if

the accident is occurred in the year 2012, the salary of the

injured must be taken as Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand

only) per month. The age of the claimant was 17 years as on

the date of accident, hence the multiplier 18 is to be adopted.

At the time of calculation, the disability is assessed at

10%. Hence, the amount towards loss of future earning

capacity due to disability is calculated as under:

Rs.7,000 /- X 12 X 18 X 10/100 = Rs.1,51,200/-.

This Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.30,000/-

(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) towards loss of amenities as

against Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only).

The compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty

Thousand only) awarded towards Loss of marriage prospects

remains intact.

It is noticed that the Tribunal has not awarded

compensation towards attendant's charge & conveyance.

Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.6,800/-

NC: 2024:KHC:13176

(Rupees Six Thousand Eight Hundred only) towards attendant's

charge & Conveyance.

8. Accordingly, this Court re-determines the

compensation as under:-

1. Pain and Sufferings 50,000 Rs.50,000/-

2. Medical Expenses 86,000 Rs.86,000/-

3. Loss of income during 7,000 X 3 Rs.21,000/- the period of treatment

4. Future Medical 20,000 Rs.20,000/- expenses

5. Loss of future earning 1,51,200 Rs.1,51,200/-

   capacity          due      to
   disability

6. Loss of amenities               15,000 + 15,000         Rs.30,000/-
7. Loss         of     Marriage            20,000          Rs.20,000/-
   prospects
8. Towards           Attendant's           6,800            Rs.6,800/-
   charge & Conveyance
                                                Total:    Rs.3,85,000/-

(Less) Compensation awarded by the -Rs.2,33,000/-

Tribunal:

Enhanced compensation awarded by Rs.1,52,000/-

this Court:

NC: 2024:KHC:13176

A good deal of arguments is canvassed on contributory

negligence. The Tribunal extenso referred to the material on

record and concluded that the claimant was aged 16 years and

he was not having a valid driving license to ride the motorcycle

as on the date of accident and hence, he has attributed 10% of

negligence to the accident. In my view, the conclusion so

arrived at by the Tribunal is just and proper. I find no reasons

to set-aside the said finding. Therefore, the claimant is entitled

for 90% of the enhanced compensation amount.

9. Hence, the following: