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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.