Karnataka High Court
Mr S Mahadevaiah vs Bangara Nayaka on 19 February, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6963
MFA No. 6744 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6744 OF 2021 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MR.S.MAHADEVAIAH
S/O.SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT NO.1, VIJAPURA
T.NARASIPURA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT
REP.BY HIS NEXT FRIEND
WIFE AS GUARDIAN, PUTTAMMA
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI N.R.RANGE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BANGARA NAYAKA
S/O.K.BASANAYAKA
MAJOR
NO.107, KOTEKERE
GUNDLUPET TALUK
Digitally CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
signed by B
2. THE HDFC ERGO GENERAL
LAVANYA
INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Location: NO.2, 2ND FLOOR, 2ND BUILDING
HIGH SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING
COURT OF
M.G.ROAD
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU -560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED V.O.D.19.02.2024)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6963
MFA No. 6744 of 2021
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.03.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO.495/2016 BY I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE &
MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-11).
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant
challenging the judgment and award dated 04.03.2020
passed in MVC.No.495/2016 by the Court of I Additional
Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-11) (for
short 'the tribunal'). The appeal is preferred on the
premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded
by the tribunal.
2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per
their status before the tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case is as under:
On 02.01.2015 at about 9.45 a.m., the claimant was
riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-05-EH-
7213 on the extreme left side of Mysore-Ooty road, near
Hosahalli Gate Bridge, at that time, the driver of Auto
NC: 2024:KHC:6963
rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-07-A-1525 came in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle
of the claimant. Due to the impact of the accident, the
claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries and
shifted to Government Hospital, wherein he took first aid
treatment and thereafter, shifted to BGS Apollo Hospital,
wherein it was diagnosed that the claimant has sustained
clavicle fracture, fracture lesser Trochanter, head injury
and other injuries to the body.
3.1 It is stated that the claimant was hale and
healthy prior to the accident and was working as a Gram
Panchayat Officer and earning a sum of Rs.13,572/- per
month. In view of the injuries and financial expenditure
incurred by the claimant, he filed a claim petition seeking
compensation.
3.2 On service of notice, respondents filed written
statement denying the claim made by the claimant and
sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:6963
3.3 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed
relevant issues for consideration.
3.4 In order to substantiate the issue and to
establish the case, the claimant got examined the Doctor
as PW.1 and examined his wife as PW.2 and got marked
documents as Exs.P1 to P18. On the other hand, the
respondents examined two witnesses as RWs.1 and 2 and
got marked a document as Exs.R1 to R7.
3.5 On the basis of material evidence produced by
the parties, the tribunal awarded the compensation of
Rs.4,06,920/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of
petition till the date of deposit and directed respondent
No.2-Insurance Company to deposit the compensation
amount within 30 days and liberty was reserved to the
Insurer to recover the same from respondent No.1-owner.
3.6 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation
amount awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before
this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC:6963
4. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel
for appellant-claimant that the tribunal has committed an
error in awarding meager compensation, which calls for
interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, he seeks to
enhance the compensation.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-
Insurance Company vehemently contends that the tribunal
has awarded just and reasonable compensation, on the
basis of the material evidence on record. Hence, he seeks
for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for appellant-
claimant and respondent-Insurance Company and perused
the impugned judgment and award and evidence adduced
by the parties, Exs.P1 to P8 and P18 are the Police
records, which clearly depict the filing of FIR and
chargesheet against the driver of the offending vehicle i.e.
auto rickshaw and the same has not been challenged.
Therefore, negligence is rightly attributed against the
driver of the offending vehicle. Exs.P10 to P17, which are
NC: 2024:KHC:6963
the medical records clearly depict the injuries sustained by
the claimant.
7. Now coming to the age, avocation and income of
the claimant as on the date of occurrence of accident, the
claimant is working as a Gram Panchayat Officer and
earning a sum of Rs.13,572/- per month. PW.1-Doctor has
opined that there is a disability to an extent of 43.7% to
the whole body. The claimant was inpatient for 27 days
and incurred expenditure during the course of treatment.
At the time of adducing evidence, the claimant is said to
have been earning Rs.15,296/- per month as gross salary
and due to the injuries suffered, he has not been given
any work. However, it is not disputed that the claimant
has continued to do his work in the same position and
earning the same salary, which is stated by PW.2-wife of
the claimant. Analysing the evidence of PW.2, the tribunal
has not awarded any loss of future income, in view of the
claimant having continued to work in the same Office and
earning the same salary.
NC: 2024:KHC:6963
8. The tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain
and agony. However, this Court deems it appropriate to
award additional amount of Rs.20,000/-. In all,
Rs.70,000/- is awarded under this head.
9. The tribunal awarded Rs.8,100/- towards food,
attendant, conveyance, nourishment and other incident
charges etc., whereas the claimant was an inpatient for 27
days in the Hospital. Hence, this Court deems it
appropriate to award Rs.1,000/- per day, which would
come to Rs.27,000/- under this head.
10. The tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss of
amenities in life. However, it is not in dispute that the
claimant has suffered four fractures. Though he may have
continued to work without any loss of income, but the fact
remains that he has incurred certain discomfort in life due
to occurrence of accident. Hence, this Court deems it
appropriate to award Rs.50,000/- under this head.
NC: 2024:KHC:6963
11. In view of the above, the claimant would be
entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,65,820/- as
against Rs.4,06,920/- as mentioned in the table below:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Pain and agony 70,000-00
Medical expenses 3,18,820 -00
Food, attendant, conveyance, 8,100-00
nourishment and other incidental
charges etc.,
Loss of amenities in life 50,000-00
TOTAL 4,65,820-00
12. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;
ii) The judgment and award dated 04.03.2020
passed in MVC.No.495/2016 by the Court of I
Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT,
Bengaluru (SCCH-11), is modified;
iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation
of Rs.4,65,820/- as against Rs.4,06,920/-
awarded by the tribunal;
iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be
paid with interest @ 6% p.a. by the
NC: 2024:KHC:6963
respondent-Insurance Company within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order;
v) The condition imposed by the tribunal with
regard to pay and recovery from respondent
No.1-owner of the offending vehicle, is not
disturbed;
vi) The compensation amount shall be released in
favour of the appellant-claimant upon proper
verification;
vii) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the
tribunal shall stand intact.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LB
