Karnataka High Court
Jalandhar vs Sanjay And Ors on 16 February, 2024
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad, Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1585-DB
MFA No.200277 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200277 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
JALANDHAR S/O DAMODAR HAJARE,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: CLEANER (NOW NIL),
R/O WADEGAON, TQ. SANGOLA,
DIST. SOLAPUR-413001.
(MAHARASHTRA STATE)
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
(BY SRI KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE)
by SHILPA R
TENIHALLI AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. SANJAY S/O VITHALRAO SINDHE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O SHEGAON, TQ. JATH,
DIST. SANGALI-416416.
2. THE MANAGER
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
S.S.FRONT ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
3. MR. AMBA PRASAD
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1585-DB
MFA No.200277 of 2022
R/O VILLA MUBARAKPUR,
POST KOKWA,
DIST. AGRA-282001.
(UTTAR PRADESH STATE).
4. THE MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
GURUKUL ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DT.07.03.2023, NOTICE TO R1, R3 AND R4
IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS, MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 01-09-2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1527/2012 ON THE
FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XII, VIJAYAPURA AT
VIJAYAPURA AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL TO GRANT THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY RS.16,02,800/- ONLY AS
CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ORDER FOR COSTS OF THIS APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The claimant has filed this appeal under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking enhancement of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1585-DB
compensation awarded by the III Additional Senior Civil
Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.XII,
Vijayapura (for short, 'the Tribunal)' in MVC No.1527/2012
dated 01.09.2018.
2. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are
as under:
That on 26.09.2009 at 11-30 p.m., the petitioner was
proceeding in the Truck bearing registration No.MH-10/Z-
1637 as a cleaner and after unloading the goods at
Bengaluru, they were returning on Hospet-Chitradurga
NH-4 road. When the vehicle came near Amba Bhavani
Temple, Chikkagundanahalli, the driver of the truck drove
it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the
lorry bearing No.MP-06/P-3999. As a result, the petitioner
sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Civil
Hospital, Chitradurga and then, he was shifted to Disha
Hospital, Sangola, wherein he was inpatient for nearly 40
days. It is alleged that he spent Rs.2,50,000/- towards
medical expenses. He was aged about 34 years and was
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1585-DB
getting monthly income of Rs.9,000/-. Due to the
accidental injuries, he is permanently disabled. Hence, he
has filed a claim petition seeking compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/-.
3. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 though appeared did
not contest the matter while respondent Nos.2 and 4
independently filed objections statements disputing their
respective liabilities. They have denied the negligence on
the part of drivers of their respective vehicles. Further
they disputed the age, income and occupation of the
petitioner. Hence, they have sought for dismissal of the
claim petition.
4. On the basis of these pleadings, the Tribunal
has framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the petitioner proves that, on
26.09.2009 at about 11-30 p.m., when the
petitioner was returning in the Truck No.MH-
10/Z-1637 on the said vehicle on NH-4, the
driver of said vehicle No.MH-10/Z-1637 driven
in high speed, rash and negligent manner,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1585-DB
dashed to the Truck No.MP-06/P-3999 and
caused accident. On account of said accident,
the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries?
2. Whether the respondent no.2 proves that, due
to violation of policy conditions, they are not
liable to pay the compensation?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and from
whom?
5. The petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and two
witnesses were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3. The
petitioner has placed reliance on 15 documents marked at
Exs.P.1 to P.15. The officer of respondent No.4 is
examined as R.W.1 and he placed reliance on Ex.R.1.
6. The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence, has awarded total compensation of
Rs.3,97,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
by fastening the liability on respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly
and severally. The claim petition against respondent
Nos.3 and 4 came to be dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1585-DB
7. Being aggrieved by this judgment and award,
the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement.
8. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned counsel
for respondent No.2. Perused the records.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that the Tribunal has taken the disability on the
lower side and the proper compensation was not awarded
under the head of pain and suffering, loss of amenities and
no compensation was awarded under the head of laid up
period. Hence, he would seek for enhancement of
compensation.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
No.2 would contend that the income taken was Rs.6,000/-
per month itself was on the higher side considering the
year of the accident, as it is in 2009 and the compensation
awarded under other heads is proper and hence, he would
seek for dismissal of the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1585-DB
11. Having heard the arguments and perusing the
records, there is no dispute of the fact that the petitioner
sustained accidental injuries in the road traffic accident.
Further, respondent No.2 has not challenged the award
disputing its liability. Ex.P.4 is the would certificate which
discloses that the petitioner has suffered compound
comminuted fracture of right femur and Ex.P.5 is the
discharge certificate which discloses that he was inpatient
from 28.09.2009 to 22.11.2009. Hence, the petitioner was
inpatient for nearly 38 days in the hospital. The Tribunal
after assessing the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 has
considered total disability to the extent of 10% which is
just and proper and does not all for any interference.
12. The Tribunal has also taken the income of the
claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month. He is alleged to be the
cleaner and considering these facts and circumstances, the
income taken is on proper side and appropriate multiplier
is applied. Hence, under the head of loss of income due to
disability, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,15,200/- which
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1585-DB
does not call for any interference. The Tribunal has also
awarded proper compensation under the medical
expenses, food and nourishment, attendant charges and
conveyance charges which does not call for any
interference.
13. Under the head pain and suffering, the Tribunal
has awarded Rs.20,000/-. Considering the fracture of
femur, it appears to be on lower side. Hence, considering
the fact that the accident has occurred in 2009, we
propose to award compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the
claimant as against Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal
under the head pain and suffering.
14. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- under
the head loss of amenities and future happiness. Due to
the accidental injuries, the petitioner is required to suffer
throughout his life and considering this aspect, we propose
to award compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head loss
of amenities and future happiness as against Rs.10,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not awarded
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1585-DB
any compensation under the head loss of income during
laid up period. The petitioner was inpatient in the hospital
for nearly 38-40 days and he could have been prevented
from attending his normal duty for at least three months.
Hence, he is entitled for loss of income during the laid up
period for three months and since his income is taken as
Rs.6,000/- per month, he is entitled for Rs.18,000/-
Rs.6,000/- x 3) under the head of loss of income during
the laid up period. Hence, the claimant is entitled for
compensation under the following heads:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/-
2. Medical Expenses Rs.2,22,000/-
3. Loss of income due to Rs.1,15,200/-
permanent physical disability
4. Food and nourishment Rs.10,000/-
5. Attendant Charges Rs.10,000/-
6. Conveyance charges Rs.10,000/-
7. Loss of amenities and future RS.40,000
happiness
8. Loss of income during the laid Rs.18,000/-
up period
Total Rs.4,65,200/-
15. Hence, the impugned judgment and award of
the Tribunal is required to be modified and accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following:
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1585-DB
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The appellant/petitioner is entitled for
compensation in a sum of Rs.4,65,200,/-
together with interest at 6% p.a. as against
Rs.3,97,200/- granted by the Tribunal
excluding the interest for the delayed period
of 471 days.
(iii) Respondent No.2 shall deposit the
compensation along with interest before the
Tribunal within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment.
(iv) Send a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RSP
