Karnataka High Court
Sri Yashwanth D vs Sri Rafiq Ulla on 4 November, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44247
MFA No. 4772 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
MFA NO. 4772 OF 2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI.YASHWANTH D.
S/O DODDAHONNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT KALLANAYAKANAHALLI
HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 126 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH B., ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI. RAFIQ ULLA
S/O KALEEL SAB
R/AT MUCHIGARAHATTI
SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DIST-572 137
Digitally signed
by KIRAN 2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
KUMAR R COMPANY LTD., 2ND FLOOR
Location: HIGH BALAJI ENCLAVE
COURT OF 2ND STAGE BTM LAYOUT
KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 075 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.D. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 20.04.2023,
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.10.2019
PASSED IN MVC NO.5761/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU
(SCCH-14), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44247
MFA No. 4772 of 2020
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Being aggrieved by the attribution of negligence to
an extent of 15% on the claimant and also being
dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred this appeal.
2. The occurrence of the accident is not in dispute and
the liability of the insurer to satisfy the compensation is
also not in dispute.
3. The Tribunal has proceeded to apportion the
negligence to an extent of 15% on the claimant on the
ground that the claimant had not produced material
documents such as spot sketch as well as the vehicle
documents and from this, it could be inferred that he was
also responsible for the accident to a certain extent. In my
view, this reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be accepted.
NC: 2024:KHC:44247
4. It is to be noticed here that the claimant was
traveling in his motorcycle when it had a collision with a
canter owned by the 1st respondent. It is not in dispute
that the driver of the offending vehicle has not been
examined, whereas the claimant had categorically stated
that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the
part of the driver of the canter owned by the 1st
respondent. It is also noticed that the charge sheet has
also been laid against the driver of the vehicle owned by
the 1st respondent. Hence, the attribution of negligence to
an extent of 15% on the claimant cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the finding of the Tribunal is set aside.
5. As far as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal
has not awarded any sums towards loss of future income
since the doctor who had been examined was not the
treating doctor and the extent of disability assessed by
him was extremely on the higher side. The Tribunal has
noticed that the claimant was treated conservatively and,
therefore, it came to the conclusion that there was no
NC: 2024:KHC:44247
justification for holding that he was permanently disabled.
In my view, the said finding of the Tribunal cannot be
found fault.
6. However, it is noticed that the sums awarded under
other heads are on the lower side. Since the claimant had
suffered a fracture of patella, Rs.25,000/- awarded
towards pain and sufferings, and Rs.30,000/- awarded
towards loss of amenities by the Tribunal are enhanced to
Rs.50,000/- each.
7. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-
towards food, nourishment, conveyance and other
miscellaneous charges and treated the laid-up period as
one month and awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards
loss of income during laid up period. In my view, since the
claimant suffered fracture of patella, it would be
appropriate to treat the laid up period as two months and
award a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of income during
laid up period and Rs.10,000/- towards food, nourishment,
conveyance and other miscellaneous charges.
NC: 2024:KHC:44247
8. The amount of Rs.6,500/- awarded by the Tribunal
towards medical expenses, being based on documentary
evidence, is affirmed.
9. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified
and the following sums are awarded as compensation:
As As
awarded awarded
Sl. Compensation
by the by this
No. under different
Tribunal Court
Heads
(Rs.) (Rs.)
1. Pain and sufferings 25,000 50,000
2. Medical expenses 6,500 6,500
Loss of income 20,000 40,000
3. during the laid up
period
Conveyance, 5,000 10,000
4. nourishment and
nutritious food
Loss of amenities 30,000 50,000
5.
in life
Total 86,500 1,56,500
NC: 2024:KHC:44247
10. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled for
compensation of Rs.1,56,500/- as against Rs.86,500/-
along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced
amount from the date of petition till its realisation.
11. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
entire amount of compensation awarded within two
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment.
12. On such deposit being made, the claimant is
permitted to withdraw the same.
13. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
PKS
