Karnataka High Court
H M Sathish vs Raghava Shetty on 4 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36455
MFA No. 3574 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3574 OF 2022(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
H.M. SATHISH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O KITTA ACHARI @ KRISHNA ACHARYA,
R/O H. NO.1/2017,
HILIYANA VILLAGE,
AVARSE POST,
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.M. ANFAL., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAGHAVA SHETTY,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
signed by S/O LATE KALAPPA SHETTY,
YAMUNA K L
R/O H NO.2-131, PADUBARALI,
Location:
High Court of HEGGUNJE VILLAGE,
Karnataka MANDARTHI POST,
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 201.
2. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
BRANCH OFFICE,
KUNDAPURA-576 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. GOVINDARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED: 22.02.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36455
MFA No. 3574 of 2022
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 1073(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.11.2021 PASSED IN
MVC NO.586/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, SITTING AT
KUNDAPURA, KUNDAPURA, 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.S.M.Anfal, learned Counsel who represents
Sri. K.Prsanna Shetty, learned Counsel on record for the
appellant. Also heard Sri.R.Govindarajan, learned Counsel
for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
2. On the ground that he sustained grievous injuries
in a road traffic accident and became permanently
disabled, the appellant filed a petition claiming
compensation. The Tribunal which dealt with the matter,
i.e., Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udupi, through
NC: 2024:KHC:36455
orders in MVC No.586/2018 awarded a sum of
Rs.1,31,600/- as compensation. Being dissatisfied with
the same, the claimant is before this Court.
3. Arguing the matter, Shri S.M.Anfal, learned
Counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant
sustained grievous injuries due to accident and became
disabled. Though the appellant through the evidence of
C.W.1 has established the nature of disability, the Tribunal
awarded a meager sum as compensation under all heads
which is unjustifiable. Learned Counsel thereby seeks for
enhancement of compensation.
4. The submission that is made by
Shri R.Govindarajan, learned Counsel for respondent No.2
on the other hand is that appellant took treatment as
in-patient only for a period of three days. He was treated
with conservative management. The evidence of C.W.1
is not convincing and the same was observed by the
Tribunal. Therefore, Tribunal rightly assessed and awarded
NC: 2024:KHC:36455
a justifiable sum as compensation and therefore, award
of the Tribunal needs no interference.
5. The Tribunal through the impugned award has
awarded a sum of Rs.1,31,600/- as compensation divided
under the following heads:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Towards Pain and sufferings 60,000-00
Towards medical expenses 51,600-00
Towards loss of amenities 20,000-00
Total 1,31,600-00
6. It is not in dispute that appellant sustained
fracture of right orbital roof which was treated
conservatively for a period of thee days by keeping the
appellant as in-patient. Though the appellant raised a
contention that he was readmitted and was treated, as
rightly observed by the Tribunal, the problem for which he
was readmitted i.e., Cholangitis does not relate to the
injuries sustained and there is no evidence that due to
injuries sustained, such a problem arose. Likewise,
evidence of C.W.1 does not inspire confidence that the
appellant suffers with any permanent physical disability.
NC: 2024:KHC:36455
Also, the appellant failed to produce any evidence with
regard to his occupation and earnings by the date of
accident. Having considered all these aspects, the
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,31,600/- as
compensation. However, the Tribunal failed to award any
amount towards the expenditure which the appellant
would have incurred towards extra nourishment, diet and
attendant charges separately. Also, having regard to the
nature of injuries sustained, the appellant would have
taken bed rest at least for a period of one month. The
Tribunal did not award any amount towards loss of
earnings during laid up period. Therefore, this Court is of
the view that the appellant is entitled to a global sum of
Rs.50,000/-. Such an enhancement in the opinion of this
Court is justifiable having regard to the nature of injuries
sustained and the treatment taken.
7. Thus, in the light of the foregoing reasons, the
appeal is disposed of with the following:-
NC: 2024:KHC:36455
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The compensation that is awarded by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kundapura, through
orders in M.V.C. No.586/2018 dated 15.11.2021 is
enhanced by Rs.50,000/-.
iii. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till the date
of deposit.
iv. The second respondent is directed to deposit the
enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this order.
v. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
YN
