Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 928
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
S.G. Pandit, V. Srishananda, JJ.
T. Satyanarayana - Appellant
Versus
Shankrayya - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 103424 of 2016
Decided On : 09-07-2020
Deepak C Maganur, Advocate, A.B. Patil, Advocate, Sharmila M Patil, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper assessment of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, including the monthly income, disability, and other factors influencing the compensation amount.
Headnote:
M.V. Act - Compensation for Road Traffic Accident - Section 166 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which deals with compensation for victims of hit and run accidents. The court also referred to the evidence presented under Sections PW1 to PW4 and Exs.P1 to P80, and the assessment of compensation under the Act. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the evidence and the assessment of loss of future income, pain and suffering, loss of amenities in life, and other factors under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The injured-claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, alleging grievous injuries in a road traffic accident. The tribunal awarded compensation, which the claimant appealed, seeking enhancement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimant sustained injuries due to the negligent driving of the offending vehicle, and the tribunal's assessment of compensation was inadequate.
Issues: The issues included the assessment of monthly income, disability, and entitlement to enhancement of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the injured and the disability, and thus enhanced the compensation based on reappreciation of the evidence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the judgment and award of the tribunal to increase the total compensation to Rs.4,61,278/- with interest at 6% per annum.
JUDGMENT
V. Srishananda, J. - The injured-claimant is in appeal being not satisfied with the judgment and award dated 15.09.2016, passed in MVC No.414/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Gagavathi (for short 'the tribunal').
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under:
A claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act, alleging that on 05.02.2015, at about 10:30 a.m. when the claimant was standing by the side of Gangvathi- Sindhanur main road, near Pragathinagar, in front of Shivaramakrishna Petrol Bunk to fill petrol to his vehicle. At that time, a Tempo Trax Toofan vehicle bearing No.KA-37/A- 5343 came from Gangavathi side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the vehicle of the claimant and caused accident. Due to the said impact, the claimant/appellant sustained grievous injuries. After the accident, the claimant/appellant was shifted to Dr.Mallanagouda Hospital, Gangavathi for treatment. The brother of the claimant lodged the complaint before the Gangavathi Rural Police Station. On the basis of the complaint, the Gangavathi Rural Police have registered the case, investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against respondent No.1. It is further contended that the claimant was an agriculturist and also indulged in milk vending business and was earning Rs.36,000/- per month and due to the accident, he lost his earning capacity and sought for grant of suitable compensation.
3. On issuance of notice, respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared before the tribunal and contested the matter. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 denied the petition averments in toto. They also contended that no accident has occurred as is alleged by the claimant. If the driver of the vehicle is responsible for the accident, since the vehicle is insured, the Insurance Company be saddled with the liability. Whereas the Insurance Company also denied the petition averments and denied that the driver of the offending vehicle was not negligent. They also contended that the terms of the policy was violated and sought for dismissal of the petition.
4. Based on the rival contentions, the tribunal raised the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries in road traffic accident occurred on 05.02.2015 at about 10:30 a.m. on Gangavathi- Sindhanur main road, near Shivaramkrishna Petrol Bunk, when the petitioner was standing by the side of road, at that time, the tempo trax of respondent No.1 bearing No.KA-37/A-5343 came from opposite direction in high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner and caused accident?
2. Whether respondent No.3 proves that the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay compensation as respondent No.2 violated terms and conditions of the insurance policy?
3. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation?
4. What order or award?
5. In order to prove the case, the claimant-injured got himself examined as PW1 and also got examined PW2 to PW4 and got marked 80 documents as Exs.P1 to P80. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced and only got marked the Insurance Police as Ex.R1 by the respondent No.3.
6. Based on the available evidence on record, the tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation to the claimant in a sum of Rs.2,12,098/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization by answering the issues. It is that judgment and award, which is under challenge by the claimant in this appeal.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant vehemently contended that the tribunal has grossly erred in awarding meager compensation towards loss of future income, pain and suffering, loss of amenities in life, loss of earning during treatment and etc., and sought for enhancement of compensation.
8. He further contended that the tribunal erred in notionally assessing the monthly income of the injured and ought to have taken into consideration the functional disability as is as
