Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 36646
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
K. NATARAJAN, J
FLORINE LOBO – Appellant
Versus
NAVEEN KUMAR (RC OWNER) – Respondent
MFA 828 / 2022
SRI. SRIKANTH N V., ADVOCATE; SRI. RAKSHITH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. DILIP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. DILIP M.R., ADVOCATE FOR R2
The court ruled that compensation must reflect the severity of injuries and suffering, modifying the tribunal's inadequate awards to ensure justice.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 173(1) and 166 - Appeals challenging the tribunal's award of compensation for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident - The court found the tribunal's compensation inadequate given the grievous nature of injuries sustained. (Paras 1, 4, 9, 12, 19)
(B) Compensation - The court emphasized that compensation should reflect the severity of injuries and associated suffering, adjusting the tribunal's award to ensure justice for the claimants. (Paras 10, 14, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners suffered grievous injuries in a road traffic accident caused by the negligent driving of an auto-rickshaw. They sought compensation for medical expenses and suffering. (Paras 4, 10)
Findings of Court:
The tribunal's awards were deemed inadequate, leading to an increase in compensation to Rs.1,10,000 for MVC No.1017/2015 and Rs.10,000 for MVC No.1018/2015. (Paras 19, 23)
Issues: The primary issue was whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal was sufficient given the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioners. (Paras 11, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tribunal's awards did not adequately account for the grievous nature of the injuries and the associated hardships, warranting an increase in compensation. (Paras 12, 19)
Result: Both appeals are allowed in part, modifying the tribunal's awards.
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN) Both these appeals are filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short hereinafter referred to as MV Act ) challenging the judgment and award dated 28.12.2020 passed in MVC No.1017/2015 (in MFA No.828/2022) and MVC No.1018/2015 (in MFA No.826/2022) passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Udupi (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') for seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
3. The appellants was petitioners and the respondents were respondents before the Trial Court. The NC: 2024:KHC:28951 MFA No. 828 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 826 of 2022 status of the parties before the Tribunal is retained for the sake of convenience.
4. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner filed petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘M.V. Act’) claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by them in the road traffic accident. It is alleged that on 10.12.2014 at 1.10 p.m., when the petitioner in MVC No.1017/2015 was riding the scooter bearing Reg.No.KA-20-EF-6819, along with her mother who is the petitioner in MVC No.1018/2015 from heroor main road towards Bantakal and when they reached near auto stand, Bantakal, Shirva village, Udupi the driver of the auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-20-C-6031 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter of the petitioners. Both the petitioners fell down and sustained grievous injuries and were admitted into hospital and treated as inpatient. Due to injury they are disabled.
Hence, prayed for granting compensation on various grounds.
NC: 2024:KHC:28951 MFA No. 828 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 826 of 2022 5. On receipt of the summons, the respondent Nos.1 and 2, appeared through counsel and filed a statement of objection by denying the rash and negligent driving, also denied age, occupation and income of the petitioner and contended that there is no disability and there is no avocation. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.
6. On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:
- M.V.C.No.1017/2015: 1. Whether the petitioner proves she suffered grievous in- juries on 10.12.2014 at about 13:10 hours, near Auto Stand Bantkal, Shirva Village, Udupi as driver of auto-rickshaw bearing Reg. No.KA-20-C-6031 struck her in a road traffic accident as pleaded in petition?
2. Whether the petitioner proves she is entitled for compensation as prayed?
3. What order or award?
NC: 2024:KHC:28951 MFA No. 828 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 826 of 2022 In M.V.C.No.1018/2015:
1. Whether the petitioner proves she suffered grievous injuries on 10.12.2014 at about 13:10 hours, near Auto Stand Bantkal, Shirva Village, Udupi as driver of auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-20-C-6031 struck her in a road traffic accident as pleaded in petition?
2. Whether the petitioner proves she is entitled for compensation as prayed?
3. What order or award??
7. To prove the case, the petitioners themselves were examined as P.W.1. and P.W.2 and also examined another witness, the Doctor as PW3. They got marked documents from Exs.P1 to P16. On behalf of the respondent, owner of the vehicle was examined as RW1 and the insurer was examined as RW2. After hearing the arguments, the tribunal answered issue No.1 in affirmative in both cases and awarded the compensation to the petitioner of Rs.77,000/- in MVC No.1017/2015 and NC: 2024:KHC:28951 MFA No. 828 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 826 of 2022 awarded compensation of Rs.5000/- to the petitioner in MVC No.1018/2015.
8. Being aggrieved by the same the claimants are before this court.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the tribunal committed error in awarding very meagre compensation, where the claimants suffered grievous injuries and spent lot of medical expenses, Pain and agony and loss of laid up period
