Karnataka High Court
Sri. K. Sangamesh vs Balanna on 5 June, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:20747
MFA No. 1293 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1293 OF 2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. K. SANGAMESH
S/O KARASANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.70, KANAMINAKI COLONY,
KUMBALAGODU, MYSORE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 060.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VISHWANATHA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BALANNA
MAJOR, NO.89,
JATTIPALYA, TAVAREKERE, BENGALURU - 562 130.
2. CHOLAMANDALAM M S GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KORMANGALA,
BRANCH OFFICE, KEERTHI CLOUD, NO.9,
Digitally signed by
VEDAVATHI A K 3RD FLOOR, 1ST A CROSS, S. T. BED,
Location: High
Court of 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA,
Karnataka
4TH BLOCK, BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED: 22/04/24, NOTICE TO R1 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 05.11.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 2182/2020
ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-9),
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:20747
MFA No. 1293 of 2023
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section
173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the
judgment and award dated 05.11.2022 passed in MVC
No.2182/2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bangalore (Court of MACT) (for short hereinafter
referred to as 'Tribunal') for seeking enhancement of
compensation.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2-
Insurance Company. Issuing notice to respondent No.1 is
hereby dispensed with.
3. The status of the parties before the Tribunal is
retained for the sake of convenience.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner
filed petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (for
short 'M.V. Act') claiming compensation of Rs.15 lakhs for
NC: 2024:KHC:20747
the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident
occurred on 13.03.2020. It is alleged by the petitioner that
on the said day, at about 04.00 p.m., when he was waiting
for the bus at Sumanahalli bridge, at that time a canter
bearing registration No.KA-41-A-2732 driven by its driver
in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the petitioner,
due to which, he sustained grievous injury and was taken
to the Lakshmi Multi-Specialty Hospital, Srigandhada
Kaval, Sunkadakatte and took treatment as an inpatient.
The injury is grievous in nature, due to which he has
suffered disability. This accident occurred due to the
negligent driving of the driver of the car, belonging to
respondent No.1 and the same is insured with respondent
No.2. Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition.
5. On receipt of the summons the respondent No.1
appeared and filed objection by denying the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the canter and except
accepting that he is the owner of the said vehicle. The
NC: 2024:KHC:20747
vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2. Hence,
prayed for dismissing the petition.
6. The respondent No.2 also filed statement of
objections, by denying the averments made in the
petition as false and contended that accident caused due
to the negligence of the driver, who had no valid license to
drive the said vehicle by taking various contentions,
prayed for dismissing the petition.
7. On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed
the following issues for consideration:
1. Whether petitioner proves that, he sustained
injuries on account of Road Traffic Accident
too place on Sumanahalli Junction, Magadi
Main Road, Bengaluru due to rash and
negligent manner driving of the driver of
Canter, bearing Reg. No. KA- 41-A-2732
dated 13.02.2020 at about 4.00 pm., as
alleged in the petition ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the quantum?
From whom?
3. What Order or Award?
NC: 2024:KHC:20747
8. The petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1.
and he also examined another witness who is the record
keeper as PW2 and the Doctor as PW3. They got marked
documents from Exs.P1 to P17. On behalf of the
respondents, one Mahesh Prasad was examined as RW1
and got marked the insurance policy at Ex.R1. After
hearing the arguments, the tribunal answered issue No.1
in the affirmative, issue No.2 in the partly affirmative
and passed the award by granting compensation of
Rs.4,91,661/- on the various heads as under:
Particulars Amount
in Rs.
Towards injury pain and 50,000/-
suffering
Towards medical expenses 1,51,461/-
Towards food and extra 6,300/-
nourishment and medical
attendant
Towards conveyance 10,000/-
Towards loss of income during 29,000/-
treatment
Towards loss of future earning 2,34,900/-
Deprivation of future amenities 10,000/-
Total 4,91,661/-
NC: 2024:KHC:20747
9. Being aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation, the petitioner preferred this appeal
contending that the tribunal has not properly appreciated
the evidence on record. Regarding the wound and injury
sustained by the petitioner, disability was not properly
calculated. Even though, the doctor had declared 42%
disability to particular limb and 14% to the whole body,
but the tribunal considered only 9%, which is not correct.
Therefore, prayed for enhancing the compensation. He
also contended that the laid up period, also not properly
appreciated and was granted only Rs.29,000/- which is not
correct, as minimum 3 times is required for recovery from
the injuries. Hence prayed for enhancing the same.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2, Insurance Company supported the judgment and
award passed by the tribunal and contended that the
amount of calculation made by the tribunal is correct.
Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:20747
11. Having heard the arguments, perused the
records, the point that arises for my consideration is
Whether the calculation made by
the tribunal, in respect of
disability and laid up period and
other expenditures are very
meager and are liable to be
enhanced, if so, what is the
amount?
12. On perusal of the record, though the
respondent No.2, taken various contentions before the
tribunal, but the issuance of insurance policy was not in
dispute and the tribunal rightly held that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the canter vehicle, which was insured with respondent
No.2. Hence, the only point that arises for consideration is
regarding quantum of compensation awarded by the
tribunal. In this regard, the accident was occurred in the
year 2020 and even in the Lokadalath income to be
considered is Rs.14,500/- per month as notional income.
Therefore, tribunal also taken the same amount as
income, which is correct.
NC: 2024:KHC:20747
13. "Loss of future earning capacity": As
regards to the loss of income due to disability as per the
evidence of PW3 and PW2, who have produced the medical
records, the petitioner suffered permanent disability to the
upper limb was to an extent of 42% and whole body
comes to an extent of 14%. However, the tribunal though
considered 9%, but no proper evidence or reasons were
assigned for reducing another 5% of disability. Therefore,
the same is set aside and 14% disability to be considered
instead of 9%.
"Loss of future earning capacity" :- Hence, if the
income of the injured is considered as Rs.14,500,
multiplied into 12 months and further multiplied to 15
multiplier x 14% of disability is considered which is as
under;
Rs.14,500/- x 12 x 15 x 14% = Rs.3,65,400/- .
NC: 2024:KHC:20747
14. Pain and suffering:- As regards to the pain
and suffering, tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- it need not
be enhanced and retained to the same.
15. Medical expenses:- Medical expenditures
Rs.1,51,461/- was granted which is based upon the
documentary evidence, which is also upheld.
16. "Food and nourishment, attendant
charges:- The petitioner was admitted in the hospital for
more than 9 days and took treatment. Such being the
case, awarding Rs.6,300/- is not correct. Therefore the
same is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-.
17. Loss of future amenities:- As regards to
loss of amenities tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/- but
as per the evidence of doctor the petitioner cannot lift,
cannot hold weight. Such being the case, there is
definitely loss of amenities to the petitioner. Hence the
same is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20747
18. Conveyance charges:- As regards to
conveyance charges tribunal not awarded any
compensation. The petitioner must have spent some
amount to shifting to hospital thereafter to the home and
must have attended the following treatment. Therefore,
Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards the conveyance charges
which is just and proper.
19. Laid up period:- As regards to the laid up
period, the tribunal not considered anything, but awarded
only Rs.29,000/-. The petitioner could have taken
treatment and taken rest for 3 months and if Rs.14,500/-
per month is considered which will be,
Rs.14,500/- income x 3 months which is
Rs.43,500/-.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20747
Particulars Amount
in Rs.
Loss of earning capacity 3,65,400/-
Pain and Suffering 50,000/-
Medical expenses 1,51,461/-
Food and nourishment, 15,000/-.
attendant charges:
Conveyance charges 10,000
Loss of future amenities 30,000/-
Loss of income during 43,500/-
treatment and rest
Total 6,65,361/-
Rounded to 6,65,400/-
25. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. Both the appeals are allowed in part.
ii. The claimant/appellant in dated 05.11.2022 passed
in MVC No.2182/2020 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Bangalore is entitled for a sum of
Rs.6,65,400/- instead of Rs.4,91,661/- granted by
the tribunal,
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20747
iii. The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid by
the respondent-Insurance Company with interest @
6% per annum within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
iv. The amount if any awarded is already deposited shall
be adjusted;
v. The Trial Court to release entire compensation;
vi. The entire enhanced amount shall be released to the
petitioner.
vii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court records
to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order
passed by this Court forthwith without any delay;
and
viii. Draw award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AKV
CT:SK
