Karnataka High Court
Smt. D. Prabhavathi vs M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd on 4 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44023
MFA No. 287 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 287 OF 2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SMT. D. PRABHAVATHI,
W/O LATE SHANTHA KUMAR,
D/O D. VEERBHADRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/O SANGAMESHWARA NILAYA,
17TH WARD NEAR NOORANI MAZEED,
S.R. NAGAR HOSPET,
BELLARY- 563 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K. T.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MOTOR CLAIMS HUB,
Digitally signed by NO. 18, 6TH FLOOR,
AASEEFA PARVEEN NEAR KRUSHI BHAVAN
Location: HIGH HUDSON CIRCLE,
COURT OF BENGALURU - 560 001.
KARNATAKA
2. MR. NAVEEN KUMAR L.S.,
S/O SRINIVASA L.B.,
No. 58, LAKKONDAHALLI,
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H. C. VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O. DATED 09.02.2023, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH )
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST
THEJUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.01.2022 PASSED IN
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44023
MFA No. 287 of 2023
MVC NO.1210/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, MACT, MAYO
HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-21), PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Gurudev Prasad.K.T, learned counsel for
the appellant as well as Sri.H.C.Vrushabhendraiah, learned
counsel for respondent No.1.
2. The appellant who sustained injuries in a road
traffic accident filed a petition claiming compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/- in total. The Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Bengaluru which dealt with the matter as MVC
No.1210/2020 rendered orders on 25.01.2022 holding that
the appellant also contributed for the accident to occur and
her contribution is 10%. Also giving a finding that the
appellant is entitled to Rs.12,10,741/- as compensation,
ordered respondent No.1-insurance company to pay a sum
NC: 2024:KHC:44023
of Rs.10,89,666.90/- which is 90% of the total amount
that is awarded as compensation to the appellant.
3. Sri.Gurudev Prasad.K.T arguing the matter,
representing the appellant, contends that the entire
negligence lies on the part of the rider of the motor cycle
which is involved in the accident. Though no evidence was
let in by the respondents regarding the contributory
negligence on the part of the appellant and though the
owner of the vehicle remained exparte, yet the Tribunal
gave a finding that the appellant contributed for the
accident to occur and the contribution is to an extent of
10% and the said finding is improper.
4. On the other hand the submission that is made
by Sri.H.C.Vrushabhendraiah, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 is that the appellant ventured to cross
the road where there was no zebra crossing and signal and
thereby she contributed for the accident to occur. Learned
counsel states that the Tribunal having perceived the said
NC: 2024:KHC:44023
fact attributed 10% negligence on the part of the appellant
which is proper.
5. It is not in dispute that basing on the complaint
given, a case was registered against the rider of the motor
cycle and charge sheet was also laid. In none of the
documents i.e., Ex.C1-FIR, Ex.C2-Complaint, Ex.C3-
Mahazar, Ex.C7-Charge sheet there is a mention that the
appellant was negligent. Even the Tribunal did not state
where from it gathered the necessary evidence to attribute
contributory negligence on the part of the appellant.
Admittedly, as per the documents produced, the rider of
the motor cycle was at fault. In this regard, the Tribunal at
paragraph 11 of the impugned order gave a clear finding
that the rider of the motor cycle was riding the motor
cycle in a rash and negligent manner at the relevant time.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that attributing
contributory negligence on the part of the appellant is
improper. Thus this Court holds that respondent No.1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44023
insurance company is at liability to answer the claim of the
appellant and pay compensation in toto.
6. Coming to quantum, learned counsel for the
appellant Sri.Gurudev Prasad.K.T submits that the
appellant sustained grievous injuries and took treatment
as inpatient for a period of 32 days on five different
occasions. Learned counsel also states that the appellant
underwent 5 surgeries. Learned counsel also submits that
the appellant by running a Provision Store was earning
substantial sum, but, the Tribunal neither awarded
compensation under the head loss of earnings during laid
up period nor under the head loss of future earnings which
is unjustifiable.
7. The submission that is made by
Sri.H.C.Vrushabhendraiah, learned counsel for respondent
No.1 on the other hand is that the appellant did not
produce any proof to show that she was running the
alleged Provision Store by the date of accident. Learned
counsel further contends that as on the date of accident,
NC: 2024:KHC:44023
the appellant was aged 67 years and was a pensioner.
Having considered theses facts, the Tribunal did not award
any sum as compensation under the head loss of income
which is unjustifiable.
8. Undisputedly, the appellant did not produce any
proof with regard to her occupation and earnings by the
date of accident. However, by the evidence of Pw.1-
Dr.Nagaraj.B.N, it is clear that the appellant sustained left
type-III compound fracture tibia with extensive soft tissue
loss, segmental fracture of the right leg, degloving injury
of left arm with fracture of proximal third ulna and also a
cut injury to left thumb.
9. Having considered the nature of injuries
sustained and also the fact that the appellant took
extensive treatment including a surgery, this Court is of
the view that the appellant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- more under the head loss of amenities in
life. Thus the appeal is disposed of with the following:
NC: 2024:KHC:44023
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The compensation that is awarded by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru through orders in MVC
No.1210/2020 dated 25.01.2022 is
enhanced by Rs.1,00,000/-.
(iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at
the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till the date of deposit.
(iv) However, the appellant is not entitled for
any interest for the period of delay of 213
days on the enhanced sum as per the
orders in I.A.No.1/2023 dated 09.02.2023.
(v) The contributory negligence attributed on
the part of the appellant is set aside.
(vi) Respondents are at liability to pay entire
compensation that is awarded in toto.
(vii) Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the
entire award amount before the concerned
Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this order.
NC: 2024:KHC:44023
(viii) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted
to withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
NS
CT:TSM
