SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 35274

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2022

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

MFA No.2053 of 2020(MV)

BETWEEN

L P PRADEEP KUMAR

S/O. K PRAKASH

R/O. LAKSHMI SAGARA VILLAGE

MELUKOTE HOBLI

PANDAVAPURA TALUK

MANDYA DIST 571429.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI.SREENIVASAN M Y., ADV.)

AND

1 . GOPALA

S/O. THMMEGOWDA

R/O. KODALA VILLAGE

MELUKOTE HOBLI

PANDAVAPURA TALUK

MANDYA DIST 571429.

2 . MAHADVAIAH H G

S/O. GURUNANJAPPA

MAJOR

2

R/O. NYMANAHALLI VILLAGE

MELUKOTE HOBLI

PANDAVAPURA TALUK

MANDYA DIST-571429.

3 . MANAGER

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

ADICHUNCHANGIRI ROAD

KUVEMPU NAGARA

MYSORE 570019

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.JANARDHANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R3:

NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS DISPENSED WITH

V/O DATED: 11.07.2022)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION.173(1) OF

MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD

DT.24.07.2019 PASSED ON MVC NO.52/2017 ON THE

FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JMFC, PANDAVAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM

PETITION

FOR

COMPENSATION

AND

SEEKING

ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

3

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 8the

Act9) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved

by the judgment dated 24.7.2019 passed by Addl.

Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura in MVC

52/2017.

2.

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 27.5.2016 when the

claimant was going to his village Lakshmisagara in a

motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-11-ED-4345 on

Keretonnuru-Lakshmisagara Main Road, at that time,

Hero Honda bearing registration No.KA-11-W-3463

being ridden by its rider at a high speed and in a rash

and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the

claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the

4

claimant

sustained

grievous

injuries

and

was

hospitalized.

3.

The claimant filed a petition under Section

166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded

that

he

spent

huge

amount

towards

medical

expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded

that the accident occurred purely on account of the

rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by

its rider.

4.

On service of notice, the respondents

appeared through counsel and only respondent Nos.1

and 3 have filed written statements in which the

averments made in the petition were denied.

5.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was

examined as PW-1 and Dr.Girish Chandra was

5

examined through Court Commissioner as CW-1 and

got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 and

C-1 to 9. On behalf of the respondents, neither any

witness was examined nor any document was

produced. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned

judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place

on account of rash and negligent riding of the

offending vehicle by its rider, as a result of which, the

claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held

that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of

Rs.9,56,200/- along with interest at the rate of 9%

p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit

the compensation amount along with interest. Being

aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

6.

The learned counsel for the claimant has

raised the following contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he

was doing agricultural work and earning Rs.15,000/-

6

per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional

income as merely as Rs.9,000/- per month.

Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor

as CW-1. The doctor in his evidence has stated that

the claimant has suffered disability of 60% to

particular limb. But the Tribunal has taken the whole

body disability at 20%, which is on the lower side.

Moreover, there is amputation of right leg below knee.

Due to the disability, the claimant is unable to do his

day to day work and if affects his future earnings and

avocation. Hence, he is entitled for future prospects.

But the Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation

towards future prospects.

Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as

inpatient for a period of 34 days. Even after discharge

from the hospital, he was not in a position to

discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain

7

during

treatment.

Considering

the

same,

the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the

heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and

other incidental expenses are on the lower side.

Fourthly, due to amputation of right leg below

knee, the claimant requires artificial leg. But the

Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation for

'future medical expenses'. Hence, he sought for

allowing the appeal.

7.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for

the Insurance Company has raised following counter

contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he

was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, he has not

produced any documents to establish his income.

Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the

income of the claimant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top