The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9903 MFA No. 5567 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5567 OF 2013 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. SRINIVAS P. @ SRINIVASULU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O RAMANAIAH R/A NEAR SRINIVASA STORES RAGHURAM LAYOUT JALAHALLI POST RAMACHANDRAPURAM BANGALORE 560 024 …APPELLANT (BY SRI.K.V.SHYAM PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INS. CO. LTD., SUNDARAM TOWERS, 45 & 46 WHITES ROAD BANGALORE -560 002 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER BAJWA ROAD LINES SURVEY NO.95/1, KARALURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK WHITEFIELD BANGALORE -560 067 Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. A RAVISHANKAR FOR SRI. K SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 V/O/D 23/1/2019 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 4.3.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1617/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 19TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, 41ST ACMM, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9903 MFA No. 5567 of 2013 THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed in M.V.C.No.1617/2011 dated 04.03.2013 by the XIX Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, the appellant/ claimant is before this Court. 2. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. It is the case of the claimant that on 28.06.2010 at about 6:45 a.m., when he was travelling as a pillion rider along with his friend in a two wheeler on Bangalore-Kolar (NH-7) road, when they were proceeding towards Mangamma Temple at Narwada and when they came near the Confidence Group Resort, at that time, the driver of the lorry came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant's vehicle from behind. Due to the impact, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. According to the doctor, the claimant has sustained - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9903 MFA No. 5567 of 2013 disability of 25%. As per the wound certificate, he had sustained abrasion present over the left scapular area about 10x4 cms, swelling of left foot and tenderness present over left foot and tenderness over left 3rd to 7th ribs in MAL. Injury Nos.1 and 2 are simple and injury No.3 is stated to be grievous in nature. He was admitted in the hospital from 28.05.2010 to 12.08.2010. 3. The Tribunal on the issue of the negligence had held that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle which is insured by the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. When it comes to the compensation, basing on the evidence, the Tribunal had granted the compensation as per the table given below: Heads 1. Pain and sufferings 2. Medical Expenses 3. Loss of earnings 4. 5. Conveyance, attendant and nourishing food Discomfort and loss of amenities in life TOTAL Compensation Awarded : Rs. : Rs. : Rs. : Rs. 40,000/- 63,100/- 12,000/- 15,000/- : Rs. 10,000/- : Rs. 1,40,100/- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9903 MFA No. 5567 of 2013 4. The Tribunal had disbelieved the evidence of the doctor with regard to the disability as he is a treated doctor and not a competent doctor to specify the disability. It is the case of the claimant that he was working as labourer and earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. As he had not produced any supportive documents to prove the said fact, the Tribunal had taken the income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/- per month and granted compensation of an amount of Rs.1,40,100/-. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/claimant is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation towards loss of future earnings and the amounts that are granted on all other counts are not reasonable compensation. Learned counsel submits that the claimant was admitted in hospital for 76 days and the amount that is awarded to his conveyance, attendant and nourishment is on the lower side. Even towards discomfort and loss of amenities, as the claimant had sustained grievous injury, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is on the lower side. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9903 MFA No. 5567 of 2013 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/ Insurance Company submits that the accident had taken place in the year 2010 and the compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal is a reasonable one. The Tribunal has rightly held that the doctor is not competent to give the disability certificate as he is a treated doctor and not a competent doctor. Further, he submits that the Tribunal had rightly considered the income of the claimant and granted the compensation and no grounds are made out seeking interference of the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. As per the evidence on record, the claimant had sustained three injuries. Two are simple injuries and one is a grievous injury. The fracture is also united as on the date of the examination. The Tribunal had rightly disbelieved the evidence of the doctor with regard to the disability. Then coming to the compensation, towards pain and sufferings and towards medical expenses, the Tribunal had rightly granted compensation of an amount of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.63,100/- respectively. Coming to the loss of earnings, as this accident had taken place in the year 2010 and as per the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9903 MFA No. 5567 of 2013 chart, this Court is considering the notional income at Rs.5,500/-. For three months, this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.16,500/- (Rs.5,500x3) towards loss of earnings. Coming to the head of conveyance, attendant and nourishment, considering that the claimant was in hospital for a long time, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.30,000/-. Towards discomfort and loss of amenities in life, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.20,000/-. 8. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala vs. M. Malathi and Another1, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. 9. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads: Heads Compensation Awarded by Tribunal Compensation Awarded by this Court 1. Pain and sufferings : Rs. 40,000/- 2. Medical Expenses : Rs. 63,100/- 3. Loss of earnings : Rs. 12,000/- 40,000/- 63,100/- 16,500/- 1 (2014) 11 SCC 178 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9903 MFA No. 5567 of 2013 4. Conveyance, attendant and nourishing food 5. Discomfort and loss of amenities in life : : Rs. 15,000/- 30,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 20,000/- 6. Legal Expenses : Rs. 00/- 10,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 1,40,100/- 1,79,600/- Enhancement : Rs. 39,500/- 10. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.1,40,100/- to Rs.1,79,600/- and the same is rounded off as 1,80,000/-. i. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. ii. The respondent No.1 - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security. iii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9903 MFA No. 5567 of 2013 iv. No costs. v. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1