Karnataka High Court
Sunil S/O. Hanumanthappa vs Suresh S/O. Gajanana Hegde on 20 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4163
MFA No. 101000 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101000 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SUNIL S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AUTOMOBILE BUSINESS,
R/O. MALVI VILLAGE, TQ: HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST: BELLARY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. T.V. HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SURESH S/O. GAJANANA HEGDE,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND
OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REGN. NO.KA-02/6523,
R/O. HESCOM QUARTERS, SIDDAPURA,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
HESCOM LORRY BEARING REG.NO.KA-02/6523
GOVERNEMNT OF KARNATAKA, INSURANCE
DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU.
Digitally signed
by SAMREEN 3. SRI. JAGANATH S/O. VITTAL SHETTY,
SAMREEN AYUB
AYUB
DESHNUR
Date:
AGE: 47 YEARS, WORKING AS LORRY DRIVER,
DESHNUR 2024.02.23 HESCOM LORRY BEARING REG.NO.KA-02/6523
17:05:35
+0530
R/O. HESCOM QUARTERS, SIDDAPURA,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN Y.DEVAREDDIYAVAR, HCGP FOR R2;
SRI. K.RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R1 SERVED)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.566/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC AND PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-IV, HOSPETE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4163
MFA No. 101000 of 2014
THIS M.F.A, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though the matter is listed for admission, by consent of
parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Shri. T. Hanumareddy, learned counsel for
the appellant and Shri. Praveen Y. Devareddiyavar, learned
High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2.
3. Appeal by the claimant challenging the validity of
judgment and award passed in MVC No.566/2012 on the file of
Principal Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class
and Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - IV,
Hospet dated 19.09.2013.
4. Admitted facts are as under:
4.1. Claimant-injured laid a claim under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'M.V. Act') in respect of
accidental injuries sustained by him on 808.10.2011 at about
2.30 p.m., near Tumbragod village involving HESCOM lorry
bearing registration No.KA-02/6523.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4163
5. Claim petition on contest, came to be allowed in a
sum of Rs.3,09,500/- as under:
1 Pain and sufferings Rs.40,000/-
2 Loss of life amenities and pleasure Rs.10,000/-
3 Medical attendant charges, transport Rs.15,000/-
charges, food and nutrition charges
4 Medical expenses Rs.1,91,596/-
5 Loss of income during laid up period. Rs.12,000/-
Rs.4,000/- x 3 months:Rs.12,000/-
6 Loss of future income i.e., Rs.48,000/- x Rs.40,800/-
17x5/100
Total Compensation Rs.3,09,396/-
Rounded off to Rs.3,09,500/-
6. Being not satisfied with the quantum of
compensation, the claimant is in appeal.
7. Shri. T. Hanumareddy, learned counsel for the
appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum vehemently contended that the Tribunal has
grossly erred in taking monthly income in a sum of Rs. 4,000/-
though the claimant is running automobile spare parts shop.
Further, even in the absence of any proper proof of income for
the accidental injuries of the year 2011 minimum Rs.6,000/- is
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4163
to be taken as the income and sought for enhanced
compensation.
8. He also contended that on the head of loss of
amenities and loss of income during laid up period is not
properly taken by the Tribunal and sought for enhanced
compensation.
9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
for respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment.
10. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
11. On such perusal of the material on record,
accidental injuries sustained by the claimant stands
established by placing necessary oral and documentary
evidence on record.
12. Admittedly the claimant has suffered two fractures.
Therefore, on the head of loss of amenities there is a scope for
enhancement. Further, monthly income is taken at Rs.4,000/-
it should have been atleast Rs.6,000/- per month for the
accidental injuries of the year 2011.
13. Therefore, a case is made out for enhanced
compensation. Instead enhancing the compensation on each
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4163
and every head, if a sum of Rs.60,000/- awarded globally as
compensation over and above sum of Rs.3,09,500/-, ends of
justice would be met.
14. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) As against the sum of
Rs.3,09,500/-awarded by the Tribunal, the
claimant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.3,69,500/- as compensation with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till realization.
(iii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMM
