Karnataka High Court
Shwetha vs Mohammad Rafeeq on 5 March, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9235
MFA No. 3344 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3344 OF 2016(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHWETHA D/O SUKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/O MANIKOLALU,
HAKLADI VILLAGE AND POST,
KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HAVERI.S.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHAMMAD RAFEEQ
S/O ABDUL KHADAR,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT: C/O FATHIMA COMPOUND
BHARAMMANA GUDI,
HANGALUR POST & VILLAGE,
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N KUNDAPURA TALUK,
Location: HIGH UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O SUBRAMANYA BHAT,
MAJOR,
R/AT: C/O BHARATHI MOTORS,
ADARSHA BUILDING,
BRAHMAGIRI,
UDUPI TALUK-576 101.
3. RELIANCE PASSENGER GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
(REP. BY BANCH MANAGER),
GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9235
MFA No. 3344 of 2016
BRANCH OFFICE
UDUPI-576 101.
4. PRADEEP @ T.NARASIMHA
S/O DURGA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NAYAKWADI,
GUJJADI VILLAGE,
KUNDAPUR TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201.
5. SACHIDANANDA SHETTY
S/O H.KRISHNAPPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT: HOTELBAIL VILLAGE,
KUNDAPURA KASABA,
KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201.
6. RELIANCE PASSENGER GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REPT. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
BRANCH OFFICE,
UDUPI-576 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1, 2, 4 AND 5 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
BY SRI.D.VIJAYA KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI.B.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 13.11.2015
PASSED IN MVC NO.309/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT, UDUPI,
(SITTING AT KUNDAPURA) KUNDAPURA.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:9235
MFA No. 3344 of 2016
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.Haveri.S.S., learned counsel for the appellant has
appeared in person.
Sri.D.Vijaya Kumar., learned counsel for respondent No.3
has appeared through video conferencing.
2. Notice to respondents was ordered on 03.02.2017.
A perusal of the office note depicts that respondents 1, 2, 4 and
5 are served and unrepresented. They neither engaged the
services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in
person.
3. Though the appeal is listed today for hearing on
interlocutory application, with the consent of learned counsel
for the respective parties, it is heard finally.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
5. It is the case of the claimant that on the 30th day of
September 2013 at about 5:30 p.m., he was proceeding in the
NC: 2024:KHC:9235
Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-B-1106 as a commuter, the
said bus met with an accident with another Bus bearing No.KA-
20-B-7757. Due to the impact the claimant sustained injuries.
He was taken to Chinmayi Hospital, at Kundapura wherein he
was in-patient for three days. Contending that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Buses, the
claimant filed claim petition seeking compensation.
In response to the notice, respondents 1, 2 & 4 did not
appear before the Tribunal and hence, they were placed ex-
parte. Respondents 3, 5 & 6 appeared through their counsel
and filed separate written statement and denied the petition
averments. Among other grounds they prayed for dismissal of
the petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The
Tribunal vide judgment dated:13.11.2015 partly allowed the
claim petition. It is this Judgment that is called into question in
this Appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum
of Miscellaneous First Appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:9235
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
Judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to the evidence on record
and law.
Next, he submits that the Tribunal has erred in awarding
a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) towards
pain and suffering.
A further submission is made that the Tribunal has erred
in awarding meagre amount under the other heads.
Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle the award
of meagre compensation is untenable. Therefore, he submits
that the award of the Tribunal requires interference and
accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3 justified the
Judgment of the Tribunal. He submits that the appeal is devoid
of merits and the same may be dismissed.
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective
parties and perused the appeal papers with utmost care.
7. The point that would arise for consideration is
whether the Claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation?
NC: 2024:KHC:9235
8. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. The Claimant's appeal is one for enhancement of
compensation and modification of the judgment. The Tribunal
taking note of the material evidence on record concluded that
the Claimant sustained injuries due to the actionable negligence
on the part of the drivers of both the Bus.
The grounds urged in the present appeal are mainly
relating to the meager compensation awarded under different
heads by the Tribunal. The Claimant has suffered pain and
agony owing to the injuries sustained in the accident in
question. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to award
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) towards pain and
sufferings as against Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand
only) awarded by the Tribunal.
Similarly, this Court deems it appropriate to award
Rs.16,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand only) towards loss of
income during laid down period as against Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
Five Thousand only), Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)
towards medical expenses as against Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand only), and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only)
NC: 2024:KHC:9235
towards conveyance and attendant charges as against
Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only).
The amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)
towards loss of future income awarded by the Tribunal remains
intact.
9. Accordingly, this Court re-determines the
compensation as under:-
1. Pain and Sufferings 15,000+15,000 Rs.30,000/-
2. Loss of future income 8000 X 2 Rs.16,000/-
3. Medical Expenses 5,000 + 5,000 Rs.10,000/-
4. Loss of future income 10,000 Rs.10,000/-
5. Conveyance & 3,000 + 2,000 Rs.5,000/-
attendant charges
Total: Rs.71,000/-
(Less) Compensation awarded by the - Rs.38,000/-
Tribunal:
Enhanced compensation awarded by Rs.33,000/-
this Court:
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
and the prevailing rate of interest during the relevant time, this
Court deems it appropriate to award interest at the rate of 6%
NC: 2024:KHC:9235
per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the
date of claim petition till realization.
10. Hence, the following:
ORDER
1. The Miscellaneous First appeal is
allowed in part and the Judgment
dated:13.11.2015 passed by the Court of Addl.
District and Sessions Judge and Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Udupi in M.V.C No.309/2014 is
modified to the extent stated hereinabove.
2. The claimant is entitled for the enhanced
compensation of Rs.33,000/- (Rupees Thirty Three
Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of the claim petition till the
date of realization.
3. Respondents 3 & 6 - Insurance
Companies shall jointly and severally deposit the
enhanced compensation amount along with 6%
interest within a period of two months from the
NC: 2024:KHC:9235
date of receipt of the certified copy of this
Judgment.
4. The Registry to draw the modified award
accordingly.
5. Office is directed to transmit the original
records to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MRP
