Karnataka High Court

Shivaramu K N vs Smt. Kavitha R N on 5 March, 2024

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                              -1-
                                                         NC: 2024:KHC:9169
                                                      MFA No. 2572 of 2021




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

                                         BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2572 OF 2021 (MV-I)
                 BETWEEN:

                      SHIVARAMU K N
                      S/O LATE NATHEGOWDA,
                      NOW AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
                      R/AT KIRAGANDUR VILLAGE,
                      DUDDA HOBLI,
                      MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT,
                                                              ...APPELLANT
                 (BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADVOCATE)

                 AND:

                 1.   SMT. KAVITHA R N
                      W/O NAGENDRA K,
                      MAJOR BY AGE,
                      PROPRIETOR SURMS PET,
                      MALAVALLI TOWN,
Digitally             MANDYA DISTRICT
signed by V           PIN - 571 430.
KRISHNA
Location: High   2.   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
Court of              NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO, LTD.,
Karnataka
                      JLB ROAD,
                      CHAMUNDIPURAM,
                      MYSORE - 570 004,
                                                           ...RESPONDENTS
                 (BY SRI. A. R. LAKSHMI NARAYANA., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
                     VIDE ORDER DATED 18.01.2024 NOTICE TO R1 IS
                     DISPENSED WITH;)

                     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
                 JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.06.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC
                                -2-
                                              NC: 2024:KHC:9169
                                          MFA No. 2572 of 2021




NO.427/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANDYA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC,.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                            JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging the

judgment and award dated 06.08.2019 passed in

MVC.No.427/2017 by I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM,

Mandya (for short 'the Tribunal'). This appeal is founded on the

premise of inadequate and meagre compensation. Hence, the

appellant seeks enhancement of compensation.

2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per

their status before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

That on 20.03.2016, the claimant was travelling in the

Goods Tempo bearing registration No.KA-09/B-3443 along with

the coolies for cutting tender coconuts. When the vehicle

reached near hotel Ravindra @ Siddegowda, a Udayaranga bus

bearing registration No.KA-42/A-9990 driven by its driver in a

rash and negligent manner came from Malavalli side and

dashed against the bullock cart and to a person who was

NC: 2024:KHC:9169

loading sugarcane and then dashed against the tempo, in which

the claimant was travelling. Claimant was admitted to MIMS

Mandya and took treatment as inpatient for 3 days. Due to the

injuries suffered, financial expenditure met, the claimant filed

claim petition seeking compensation.

3.1. On service of notice, respondent No.1 did not filed

statement of objection. Respondent No.2 filed statement of

objection denied the averments made in the claim petition, age,

avocation, income and disability suffered by the claimant.

Hence, respondent sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

3.2. On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed

relevant issues for consideration.

3.3. In order to substantiate the issues and to establish

the case, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and got

marked documents as Exs.P1 to P41. On the other hand,

respondent did not adduce their evidence either oral or

documentary.

3.4. On the basis of material evidence, both oral and

documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned

counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded total

NC: 2024:KHC:9169

compensation of Rs.1,61,400/- with interest @6% p.a. and

directed second respondent to pay the entire compensation

within two months.

3.5. Being aggrieved by the meagre compensation

awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before this Court

challenging the impugned judgment and award.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for

appellant-claimant is that, the tribunal has committed an error

in awarding meagre compensation, which calls for interference

at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he seeks enhancement

of compensation.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance

Company submits that the tribunal has rightly awarded just and

reasonable compensation, which does not call for interference.

Therefore, on these grounds, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the claimant and

learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company

perused the impugned judgment and award, so also, Exs.P1 to

P41 are produced by the claimant. On perusal of Exs.P1 to P5

which are police records, it is apparently established that

NC: 2024:KHC:9169

negligence is rightly attributed against the driver of the

offending vehicle Bus, which is not disputed or challenged in

any proceedings. The other documents at Exs.P6 to P41 are

the medical records, prescriptions and bills to show the injuries

suffered and medical expenditure met by the claimant.

7. Now coming to the question of age, income and the

disability suffered by the claimant. There is no proof of income

produced before the Court. Tribunal has taken the notional

income at Rs.10,000/- p.m.

8. Doctor has been examined as PW.2 who has opined

the disability to an extent of 8% to the whole body and tribunal

has accepted the same. It is the vehement contention of

learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the disability

assessed by the tribunal is deserves to be set aside, as the

Doctor has not opined disability except stating disability to a

particular limb. Therefore, he contends that the disability

requires to be set aside and he also contends that in the normal

circumstances fracture of 7th and 8th ribs would not cause any

discomfort or disability to a person. I am afraid that the

statement made by the learned counsel cannot be accepted, as

we are not dealing with general circumstances, this is specific

NC: 2024:KHC:9169

circumstances of particular individual whose disability has been

opined by the Doctor, who has been subject to cross

examination and the tribunal has accepted the disability at 8%.

However, the Insurance Company is not in appeal. Hence,

disability accepted by the tribunal is appropriate. Therefore,

the loss of future income due to disability assessed by the

tribunal does not call for interference at Rs.86,400/-, it

remains the same.

9. Towards pain and suffering, the tribunal awarded

Rs.30,000/-. Same is retained.

10. Towards medical expenses a sum of Rs.5,000/- is

awarded on the basis of bills produced by the claimant. Same

is retained.

11. Towards loss of income during laid up period, the

tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-. The claimant would require

atleast three months period to recuperate and to get back to

his normal day to day activities. Therefore, the claimant would

be entitled to Rs.30,000/- (Rs.10,000/- x 3) under this head.

12. Towards loss of amenities, the tribunal awarded

Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to

NC: 2024:KHC:9169

award additional amount of Rs.25,000/-. In all, the claimant

would be entitled to Rs.35,000/- under this head.

13. Towards food, conveyance and nourishment charges

tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- by the tribunal. Same is

retained.

14. In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled

to total compensation of Rs.1,96,400/- as against

Rs.1,61,400/- as mentioned in the table below:

               Head                        Amount in Rs.

Loss of future income                                  Rs.86,400-00

Pain and suffering                                     Rs.30,000-00

Loss of Amenities                                      Rs.35,000-00

Loss of income during laid up                          Rs.30,000-00

period

Food,         conveyance      and                      Rs.10,000-00

attendant charges

Medical expenses                                        Rs.5,000-00

               TOTAL                               Rs.1,96,400-00

15. Accordingly, I pass the following:

NC: 2024:KHC:9169

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;

ii) The judgment and award dated 06.08.2019 passed by I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya in MVC.No.427/2017 is modified;

iii) The claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,96,400/- with interest at 6% as against Rs.1,61,400/-;

iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid with interest @ 6% p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;