Karnataka High Court
Shri Pradeep K R vs Shri Abdul Rehman on 3 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:35937
MFA No. 4063 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3 RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4063 OF 2015 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHRI PRADEEP K.R,
S/O RANGASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/O NO.130, ADIGA HOME,
NEAR SHARP SHOT ROAD,
6TH CROSS, BTM LAYOUT,
BANGALORE 560068.
APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SRINIVASA K N., ADVOCATE(VC))
AND:
SHRI ABDUL REHMAN,
S/O ABDUL BASHEER,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
NO.632, 13TH CROSS,
29TH MAIN, BTM LAYOUT,
EWS II STAGE,
BANGALORE 560072.
Digitally signed by
PRAJWAL A RESPONDENT
Location: HIGH COURT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
OF KARNATAKA
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.08.2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.704/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:35937
MFA No. 4063 of 2015
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The petitioner is seeking enhancement of
compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein
are referred as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are, on 01.10.2010 at
about 3.00 pm near Rupena Agrahara bus stop, rider of
motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-01-EH-1489 by name Mr.
Syed Javid dashed against the petitioner who was crossing
the road, due to which he sustained the foot injuries. After
taking treatment at Prashantha hospital, Benagluru, the
petitioner approached Tribunal for grant of compensation of
`10,00,000/-. Claim was opposed by the owner of the
vehicle. The Tribunal after taking the evidence and hearing
both the parties has passed impugned judgment and award
allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of
NC: 2024:KHC:35937
`96,800/- with 6% p.a interest. Pleading inadequacy and
seeking enhancement the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner and respondents served and unrepresented.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner has suffered fracture of both
bones of right leg and fracture of nasal bone. He was under
hospitalized for 9 days, medical bills itself constitute
`62,450/-, no compensation is awarded loss of amenities
and discomfort and incidental expenses and sought for
enhancement. There is no negligence on the part of the
petitioner inspite of it Tribunal erroneously attributed 20%
contributory negligence and it has to be removed.
6. On careful perusal of the material on record, it is
pertinent to note that there was an accident at 3 p.m at
Rupena Agrahara bus stop on 01.10.2010, where the
petitioner while crossing the road hit by motor cycle in
NC: 2024:KHC:35937
question causing the injuries. The medical records shows
that the petitioner was suffered fracture of both the bones
of right leg and fracture of nasal bone. He was under
hospitalization in Prashantha hospital for 9 days between
01.10.2010 to 08.10.2010. The petitioner was 22 years old
boy was earning more than `10,000/- per month at the
time of the accident. The Tribunal has not considered the
loss of amenities, discomfort and also the incidental
expenses such as incidental charges, conveyance, food and
nourishment for which the petitioner has approached. In
the year 2010 a person with no proof of income will earn
not less than `5,500/-, where as the Tribunal has taken
`4,500/-.
7. In view of the fracture to the right leg and also
the nasal bone, the petitioner has to be compensated with
`40,000/- towards pain and suffering, medical expenses at
`63,000/-, loss of income during six months laid up period
of `33,000/-, loss of amenities and discomfort at `25,000/,
NC: 2024:KHC:35937
attendance charge, food and nourishment and conveyance
together at `10,000/-. Total compensation come to
`1,71,000/- as against `1,21,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal, there by enhancement of `50,000/-.
8. It is the just compensation that the petitioner
would be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
9. The Tribunal has attributed in contributory
negligence on the part of the petitioner at 20% that of the
rider of the motor cycle 80%. As the evidence on record
point out that while crossing the road the accident took
place. The pedestrian too having a responsibility to observe
the incoming traffic as road user before crossing the road.
The Tribunal has rightly attributed the contributory
negligence against the petitioner and the same is to be
kept intact.
NC: 2024:KHC:35937
9. In view of above discussion, the appeal merits
consideration, in the result, the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed-in-part;
ii) Impugned judgment and award is modified;
iii) The petitioner is entitled to 80% of enhanced
compensation of `50,000/- with interest of 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
deposit;
iv) The respondent is directed to deposit said
compensation with interest within 8 weeks from
today;
v) The petitioner is not entitled for any interest for
a period of 932 days delay in filing the appeal.
SD/-
(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA)
JUDGE
PNV
