Kanthesh M vs M/S Gcs Crushers
2025 Latest Caselaw 5236 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Kanthesh M vs M/S Gcs Crushers on 19 March, 2025

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                               -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC:11621
                                                        MFA No. 1531 of 2024




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                            DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
                                            BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

                        MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1531 OF 2024 (MV-I)

                   BETWEEN:
                         KANTHESH M.
                         S/O.LATE MUKAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
                         R/AT DYAVINAKERE VILLAGE
                         MANDAGHATTA POST
                         SHIVAMOGGA TALUK
                         AND DISTRICT

                         PERMANENTLY
                         R/AT AGARADAHALLI
                         BHADRAVATHI TALUK
                         SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
                                                                 ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI SHRIPAD V.SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
                   1.    M/S.GCS CRUSHERS
                         SHOP NO.1, NO.1/2
Digitally signed         FIRST FLOOR, VIDYASAGAR
by                       THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD
GAVRIBIDANUR
SUBRAMANYA               OPP. TO ICICI BANK
GUPTA                    KYALASANAHALLI
SREENATH
                         BENGALURU-560 077
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA          2.    THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.
                         MOTOR TP CLAIMS HUB
                         NO.92, II FLOOR
                         MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS
                         M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001
                                                              ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SRI SHARANAPPA GOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
                       NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED V/O.DATED 28.08.2024)
                                -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:11621
                                         MFA No. 1531 of 2024




     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
20.09.2023 PASSED IN MVC.NO.5549/2021 BY THE CHIEF
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, PRINCIPAL
MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-1).

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

                      ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant

challenging the judgment and award dated 20.09.2023

passed in MVC.No.5549/2021 by the Chief Judge, Court of

Small Causes and Member, Principal MACT, Bengaluru (for

short 'the tribunal'). This appeal is founded on the premise

of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the

tribunal.

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:

On 02.08.2021, the claimant was walking on Lakshmi

Talkies road towards Shubhamangala Kalyana Mantapa by

taking proper care and caution and while crossing the

NC: 2025:KHC:11621

road, the driver of a Tipper vehicle bearing registration

No.KA-50-A-8030 suddenly took a turn towards right with

high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed

against the claimant. Due to which, the claimant fell down

and sustained grievous injuries.

3.1 Due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic

accident and financial expenditure meted out for

treatment, the claimant filed a claim petition seeking

compensation from the owner and the Insurance Company

of the offending vehicle.

3.2 On service of notice, respondent No.1 did not

appear and remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed

written statement denying the claim of the claimant and

sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

3.3 On the basis of materials placed on record, both

oral and documentary, the tribunal awarded total

compensation of Rs.4,93,500/- along with interest @ 6%

per annum and directed respondent No.2-Insurance

NC: 2025:KHC:11621

Company to deposit the compensation amount within

three months.

3.4 Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation

awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before this Court.

4. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel

for claimant that the tribunal has committed an error in

not taking the proper income of the claimant for awarding

compensation and the tribunal has also erred in not

assessing the disability in terms of the opinion expressed

by the Doctor i.e. PW.2. Learned counsel further contends

that when the Doctor, who is an expert, is examined as

PW.2 and opined the disability at 49% to the lower limbs

and disability at 16% to the whole body, the tribunal

ought to have taken the disability at 16% rather than

reducing it to 12%, without there being any contra

material placed before the tribunal. It is also contended

that the income is to be taken at Rs.15,000/- per month

as per the notional income chart of the Legal Services

Authority for the accident of the year 2021, whereas the

NC: 2025:KHC:11621

tribunal has taken the income at Rs.12,500/-, which is

erroneous, so also, the compensation awarded under other

heads requires to be enhanced, which is consequent upon

the enhancement of the income.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for Insurance

Company sustains the impugned judgment and award

passed by the tribunal, by contending that there is no

flaw, irregularity arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned

judgement and award. He further contends that the

compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and

reasonable, so also, the disability assessed by the tribunal

at 12% is justified as the fractures are united, which do

not call for interference. On these grounds, he seeks to

dismiss the appeal.

6. I have heard learned counsel for appellant-

claimant and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance

Company and perused impugned judgement and award

and the documents placed on record.

NC: 2025:KHC:11621

7. The occurrence of accident, involvement of vehicle

and injuries sustained by the claimant in the Road Traffic

Accident are proved and established by production of

Exs.P1 to P18. The same is not questioned or challenged

by the driver of the offending vehicle. The policy being in

force is also admitted.

8. Now coming to the question of age, avocation,

income, disability, appropriate multiplier for awarding

compensation, it is seen the claimant was aged 29 years

as on date of occurrence of accident, the appropriate

multiplier applicable is '17', which is correctly taken by the

tribunal. The income assessed by the tribunal is

Rs.12,500/- per month, whereas the notional income chart

of the Legal Services Authority for the accident of the year

2021 prescribes Rs.15,000/- per month. Hence, the

income is taken at Rs.15,000/- per month.

9. The Doctor, who was examined as PW.2, opined

the disability at 49% to the lower limbs and disability at

16% to the whole body, the tribunal ought to have taken

NC: 2025:KHC:11621

the disability at 16% rather than reducing it to 12%,

without there being any contra material placed before the

tribunal. However, the tribunal may not be right in

reducing the disability at 12%. Therefore, the disability is

retained at 16% as opined by PW.2-Doctor. Hence, the

claimant is entitled to Rs.4,89,600/- (Rs.15,000/- x 12 x

17 x 16%) towards loss of future earning due to disability

as against Rs.3,06,000/-.

10. The tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain

and agony, Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses

including conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges

and Rs.60,000/- towards unhappiness and loss of

amenities, which do not call for interference and the same

are retained.

11. The tribunal awarded Rs.37,500/- towards loss of

income during laid up period. However, in view of this

Court enhancing the income and the claimant would

require atleast three months period to recuperate and get

back to his normal day to day activities, the claimant is

NC: 2025:KHC:11621

entitled to Rs.45,000/- (Rs.15,000/- x 3) under this

head.

12. In view of the above, the claimant would be

entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,84,600/- as

against Rs.4,93,500/- awarded by the tribunal, as

mentioned in the table below:

Sl.No. Head of compensation Amount of compensation awarded

1. Pain and agony 50,000-00

2. Medical expenses including 40,000-00 conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges

3. Loss of income during laid up 45,000-00 period

4. Loss of future earning due to 4,89,600-00 disability

5. Unhappiness and loss of 60,000-00 amenities TOTAL 6,84,600-00

13. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;

ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 20.09.2023 passed in MVC.No.5549/2021 by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Principal MACT, Bengaluru, is modified;

NC: 2025:KHC:11621

iii) The appellant-claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,84,600/- as against Rs.4,93,500/- awarded by the tribunal along with interest at 6% per annum;

iv) The respondent-Insurance Company shall pay the balance amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

v) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant-claimant as per the terms of the tribunal by electronic transfer to the claimant upon furnishing the required bank details/upon proper identification;

vi) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact;

vii) Registry is directed to transmit the original records, if any, to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith.

Sd/-

(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

LB