Karnataka High Court
Kum Nischitha Reddy vs Sri Krishnamurthy C on 2 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30779
MFA No. 89 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 90 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 89 OF 2014 (MV)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 90 OF 2014 (MV)
IN MFA No.89/2014
BETWEEN:
KUM KEERTHANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
D/O UMAKANTHA REDDY R.
R/AT NO.338/A, 3RD MAIN,
3RD PHASE, J.P.NAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560078
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BHUSHANI KUMAR., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
BHARATHI S
Location:
HIGH COURT 1. SRI KRISHNAMURTHY C
OF S/O CHANNAPPA A
KARNATAKA
R/AT NO.38, SAKAMMA GARDEN,
5TH MAIN ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560004
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
HYB, D.O.4, NO.19, 19/1,
SOUTH END ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560004
3. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O SRINIVASA REDDY,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30779
MFA No. 89 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 90 of 2014
R/AT NO.586/2, 30TH CROSS,
THILAKANAGARA,
JAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU-560041
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B A RAMAKRISHNA.,ADVOCATE FOR R2
NOTICE TO R1 & R3 DISPENSED WITH V/O DT.12.11.2019)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.8840/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE & XXVIII ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA No.90/2014
BETWEEN:
KUM NISCHITHA REDDY
D/O V.SRINIVASA REDDY
R/AT NO.319, 14TH CROSS
8TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK
JAYANAGARA
BENGALURU 560011
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BHUSHANI KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI KRISHNAMURTHY C
S/O CHANNAPPA A
R/AT NO.38, SAKAMMA GARDEN
5TH MAIN ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU 560004
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
HUB, D.O.4, NO.19, 19/1
SOUTH END ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU 540004
3. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O SRINIVASA REDDY
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:30779
MFA No. 89 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 90 of 2014
R/AT NO.586/2, 30TH CROSS
THILAKANAGARA
JAYANAGARA
BENGALURU 560041
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B A RAMAKRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R2
NOTICE TO R1 & R3 DISPENSED WITH V/O DT.12.11.2019)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.8841/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE & XXVIII ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
MFA.No.89/2014 is filed challenging the judgment and
award passed in MVC.No.8840/2010. MFA.No.90/2014 is filed
challenging the judgment and award passed in
MVC.No.8841/2010.
2. The claim petitions were partly allowed by the
common judgment and award dated 10.04.2013 passed by the
Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru1. Both the
claims arise out of same accident. Hence, both the appears are
taken up together for consideration.
Hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'
NC: 2024:KHC:30779
3. The Tribunal had awarded a compensation of
`1,14,000/- in MVC.No.8840/2010 and `1,11,884/- in
MVC.No.8841/2010. Further the Tribunal recorded a finding
that the driver of the insured vehicle i.e., autorickshaw bearing
No. KA 05 D 4442, did not have a valid and effective driving
licence to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident. Hence,
the Tribunal has ordered that the owner of the said vehicle is
liable to pay the compensation awarded.
4. Being aggrieved the claimants have preferred the
present appeals challenging the finding of the Tribunal on
liability, as also seeking for enhancement of compensation.
5. Heard submissions of learned counsel Sri. Kumar.,
for the appellant and learned counsel Sri. B.A. Ramakrishna.,
for respondent No.2 - insurer.
6. It is forthcoming that the Tribunal while considering
the question of liability, noticing the driving license extract of
the driver of the insured vehicle (Ex.R.3), noticed that the
driver of the vehicle was authorized to drive Light Motor
Vehicles (LMV) non transport up to 23.08.2026 and LMV
transport up to 03.09.2009. The said licence for LMV was
NC: 2024:KHC:30779
issued on 04.09.2006. Hence, the licence authorizing the driver
to drive the LMV transport expired prior to date of the accident
i.e., 06.11.2010. In view of the said admitted position and
having regard to the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of SHAMANNA AND ANOTHER V/S DIVISIONAL
MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND
OTHERS2, it is just and proper that the finding of the Tribunal
be interfered with and it be ordered that the insurer is liable to
pay the compensation awarded with liberty to recovery same
from the owner of the vehicle.
Regarding the quantum in MFA.No.89/2014
(MVC.No.8840/2010):
7. It is noticed that the claimant is aged 22 years and
she is stated to have been working as a Junior Accountant.
However, no documents have been produced to prove her
income. It is forthcoming from the wound certificate (Ex.P.4)
and two discharge summaries (Ex.P.7) that the claimant had
sustained fracture of right superior pubic rami and lacerated
wound over right elbow. The injuries sustained by the claimant
(2018) 9 SCC 650
NC: 2024:KHC:30779
has been treated conservatively. It is further noticed that the
claimant had taken treatment as an in-patient in two hospitals
from 06.11.2010 to 08.11.2010 and further from 08.11.2010 to
11.11.2010 i.e., for total period of six days. The claimant has
not examined a Doctor. A total 19 medical bills (Ex.P.10)
amounting to `15,741.50/- has been produced.
8. In view of the aforementioned the compensation is
re-assessed as follows:
i) Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained
and the period of treatment it is just and proper the
compensation towards pain and suffering be re-assessed as
`60,000/- as against `50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal;
ii) The Tribunal has awarded compensation towards
medical expenses of `18,000/- and loss of amenities and future
happiness is `40,000/- is just and proper;
iii) The Tribunal has awarded a sum of `6,000/-
towards conveyance, nourishment, etc., which is re-assessed
as `16,000/-, keeping in mind the nature of injuries sustained
and the period of treatment;
NC: 2024:KHC:30779
iv) The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards
loss of income during period of treatment. Having regard to the
fact that the claimant has not produced any documents to
prove her income, keeping in mind the chart of notional income
being followed for settlement of claim by the Karnataka Legal
Services Authority, the income is assessed at `5,500/- p.m and
the period of treatment is assessed at two months. Hence, it is
just and proper a sum of `11,000/- is awarded toward loss of
income during laid up period.
9. In view of the aforementioned, the compensation
under various heads is re-assessed a follows:
Sl.No. Heads Amount Amount
awarded by the awarded by this
Tribunal (`) Court (`)
1. Pain and suffering 50000.00 60000.00
2. Medical expenses 18000.00 18000.00
3. Attendant charges, 6000.00 16000.00
food, nourishment
and conveyance
charges
6 Loss of amenities and 40000.00 40000.00
future happiness
7 Loss of income during 00.00 11000.00
laid up period
Total 114000.00 145000.00
NC: 2024:KHC:30779
10. Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to further
compensation of `31,000/- (`1,45,000/- - `1,14,000/-)
together with interest at 6% p.a, in addition to the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Regarding the quantum in MFA.No.90/2014
(MVC.No.8841/2010):
11. It is forthcoming that the claimant is aged 26 years
and is stated to be working as an executive in a private
company. However, no material is produced to demonstrate the
income. It is forthcoming from the wound certificate (Ex.P.13)
and discharge summary (Ex.P.14) that the claimant has
sustained fracture of right proximal phalanx of 4th and 5th toe.
It is further forthcoming that the claimant was treated as an in-
patient from 06.11.2010 to 07.11.2010 i.e., for a period of 2
days. The discharge summary (Ex.P.14) discloses that the
claimant has undergone procedure for closed reduction '+ K-
Wire Fixation on 07.11.2010 under general anesthesia. The
claimant has produced 21 medical bills (Ex.P.16) for a total
sum of `27,167.39/-. However, no Doctor has been examined.
NC: 2024:KHC:30779
12. In view of the aforementioned, the compensation is
re-assessed as follows:
i) Keeping in mind the nature of injuries sustained the
compensation towards pain and suffering is re-assessed as
`50,000/- as against `40,000/- assessed by the Tribunal;
ii) The compensation awarded towards loss of
amenities and future happiness at `40,000/- is just and proper;
iii) Having regard to the fact that the claimant has
undergone a procedure for the treatment of the injuries and
having regard to the fact that the medical bills of `27,167.39/-
has been produced, it is just and proper to award a total sum of
`40,000/- towards medical expenses and incidental charges;
iv) The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of `3,000/-
towards loss of earning during laid up period, it is just and
proper to awarded further sum of `12,000/- i.e., a total sum of
`15,000/- toward the same.
13. In view of the aforementioned, the compensation
under various heads is re-assessed a follows:
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30779
Sl.No. Heads Amount awarded Amount awarded
by the Tribunal (`) by this Court (`)
1. Pain and suffering 40000.00 50000.00
2. Medical expenses 28000.00 40000.00
4. Loss of earning 3000.00 15000.00
during the laid up
period
6 Loss of amenities 40000.00 40000.00
and future
happiness
Total 111000.00 145000.00
14. Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to further
compensation of `34,000/- (`45,000/- - `1,11,000/-) together
with interest at 6% p.a, in addition to the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
15. Hence, the following order;
ORDER
i) The appeals are allowed in part;
ii) The judgment and award dated 10.04.2013
passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC.Nos.8840/2010 and
8841/2010 is modified as under:
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30779
a) The claimant in MVC.No.8840/2010 is
entitled for further sum of `31,000/-;
b) The claimant in MVC.No.8841/2010 is
entitled for further sum of `34,000/-;
c) The compensation awarded by the
Tribunal and as enhanced by this Court shall
be paid by Respondent No.2 - insurer with
liberty to recover the same from the owner of
the vehicle;
iii) The judgment and award of the Tribunal in all
other aspects shall remain unaltered;
iv) Registry to draw the modified award
accordingly.
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
PNV
