C Kiran Kumar vs C Srinivasa on 4 November, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED TI-HS THE 4"' DAY OF' NOVEMBER 2010

BEFORE:

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTECE     

MFA.NO.6752 OF 2OT0flMv1""-~A}fi=T >  A

BETVVEEN:

C.KiraI1 Kumar

S /0. Chikka Panchegowda,

Aged about 24 years, _ B _ ._

R/0 N o.Mari1ingana Doddig. A

Keragod0H0b1i.,   A

Mandya      A
Mandya--571_4.4'O1.5fh._._ .    Q  APPELLANT

(By  ' IaLi'iVV&.'§0xi$fCE?i,B'AAd:r0.cate)
AND:   

  C_;E%riniVasa  ..... 
  S Lingajah,
 ' ,Aged years,
 . Ry_'0'A£V'£:i1«';1katd1i Doddi,
'Srinivasaf}11i'a Post,
Mandyéi Taluk,
Mandya -- 571 401

   ..{Qwne'r~o£ Scooter No. KA~11wH-8598}

/5v



2. The Divisional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd,
Near Fire Brigade, Opp. to
Muslin Hostel Complex,
Saraswathipurarrl,

Mysore -~« ll.    it

(By Sri.K.Sridhara, Advocate   «. V' 
Inc. for R2, R1 sd.]    l  it  »

=:<=:==:==i='s<_ 

This MFA is filed" ~L;nder'llSecltiolfi.._l73(l)"of'llthe MV
Act, against the   'Award dated:
28.03.2007 passed in:.'IVl"v'C': on the file of
the Sessions and Motor
Accidents  'iand},fa', partly allowing the
claim  'for lWl_Vc-ompensation and seeking

enhancement of 

This  for final disposal this day,

 V. the  d,eliVered...the following: --

_pggeflJUDGMENT
l* ,_.ll'Appel1ant is the claimant. Being not satisfied with

 judgniaent and award dated 28-03-2007 passed in

  "'l:NuI'.ICfl"pF.\lo.l8/2006 by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track

A?



Court -- I and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Mandya, ('the Tribunal' for short], filed this appeal

seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of   

E1178 2

brother, were returning  their-.  **Jill_a§e4'V\VV"irom
Ummadahalli village by~..yvalking*lVonV:th:_e letitside of the
road towards Srinivasapnrl-a_  a Scooter

bea;ing"'felg1'st£e:1oiif'N:{;KA. 1 i§H;8598 driven by the 1st
respondent  manner, dashed

against. the   to the accident, the claimant

  injt1ries.vMlrnmediately he was shifted to the

holspitpaleivdattvvplyltfanidya. The X--ray reveals that there is a

 _ fracture,__"oi'-lateral tibial condyle. The claimant was

 dptreated  inpatient for a period of 10 days and he has

  spelntshuge money for the treatment. The claimant, who

T  'Was aged about 23 yegrs as on the date of accident

On 09-11-2005 the clairnant--A-A_lVdalongvwith"



working as a driver and was getting a salary of
€4,500/-- per month, has sought for compensatirm-.ggof

35,00,000/--.

3. Pursuant to the notice issued by the  M

first respondent -- owner of the "Scoo.tery .rerr_;ained 

unrepresented. The second respondent--Ir1su'rer'fileduhis. V

objections denying the avennerits made the 
petition. They denied ~--ar}.d aifocvation of
the claimant. However.  that the
said Scooter   It was further
contended '--t11atV"v'1't'-»,:i:S claimant to prove that

accident has-toccturred'  to the rash and negligent

 'driving ofthe rid'er..Qf A the scooter. Further, the Insurer

 that the rider of the scooter does not

ha'v.e"a vatidj_ license and sought for dismissal of the

  tcplairn petitiovn as against the second respondent.

    the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

it ;:Tribuna1 framed the following issues:

iv



(1')

(ii)

Whether the petitioner proves that on 
gate on Ummadahalli«Sr'inivasaptiraV:Vi":u§3..V"'i V.
Road, when he was walking   A
road, the rider of the  
KA.11/H8598 drove  :.vehic!e':
high speed and ina and negligerit"

manner and    

petitioner and cdused'».him iry'arie.s as

stated in   " '

Whe  _ the-_'  roves: that he is

en i'itle5Ifor  r_npens_afion? ' 

    the amount

 é of corti}ié*nsa.t:ion:i?V.,And who are liable to

"p,c_iy?  .

  

Wh,ether__2f1€'. respondent proves that the

A   of the scooter did not have valid

 /a 'drip licence?
Mohat order?

/$~



5. The claimant in order to prove his case exaznihed

himself as P.W. 1 and got examined Dr. K.Bha;sl;a_,1ji 

has treated him as P.W.2 and got, 

documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P. 12. 

not led any evidence. But with the"r::_oi1ser1rt"'Vof:jlthe 

parties, the insurance policydzl the  l_ scooter has
been marked. p Z A
6. The Tribunal on  the eitidence led in by

the   to Ex.P.12

producedddddby  heldflthat due to rash and
negligent  the accident had took

place, --.'I_'he'u"rei:io1*t7' of Motor Vehicle Inspector and

 Es§hee't.'and clearly disclose that due to rash and

  of the scooter accident had took place.

 1 VVith«. regard' to the quantum of the Compensation,

JDr.VK.Bhaskar, who has treated the claimant deposed

that "due to the accident the claimant has suffered

T  'permanent disability to his left knee. Due to the

/£~



accident he cannot do the work of driver and there is

disability of 15% of his lower limb and overall disability

of 8%. On the basis of the medical report ~ 2

Dr.K.Bhaskar, the Tribunal taking into  l

the injury suffered and other l'inc'urr'ed_':d"£)y_VV'the

claimant awarded compensation oli'---{.;;'3«8,'72g(,l];'.3: 

interest. _ A p
7. Being aggrieved 'by  jufldylginent landl award
passed by the Tribunai. has filed this

appeal, allegir_igt;h.at  awarded is too

meager';-, = l

8. Sri.l\u/larigowdaV,Azlearned counsel appearing for the

  conter1ded....that the compensation awarded by

  too meager. He has sustained fracture

of  condyle due to the accident and he

 l*..cannot_w:orl<; as a Driver. He has spent huge amount

   medical expenditure and other expenditure. He

  gyvgsiibmits that without examining the same, the Tribunal

/KM



has awarded a Very meager compensation of i'.38,7__20/--

and sought for enhancement of compensation.

9. On the other hand, Sri.K.Sridh.ai1.'é'r.VV

counsel appearing for the second;__resp4or:den't@:'on't.endedVi'

that the Tribunal taking into.___considderaticnhthey 

sustained by the ciaimant_,:"'«agc. and  has
awarded Rs.  just H and fair
compensation and. same"is::h.ot  interfered by
this Honble  s:ou.._ghjt"'i"oi*WVdismissa1 of the

appeal,   

10. I have  through the arguments

addresvsed  counsel for the parties and

  andvddddocumentary evidence let in by the

"pa1'tieAs".~ i j' *« dd

W._11. itifis not in dispute that the appellant has

"'d:V'_s=.ist'ained injury on 0911-2005 due to the rash and

 "negligent riding of the scooter bearing registration

/§~



No.KA-11-i-P8598. The Police have registered Cr._.,No.

364/2005 on the file of the Mandya Rural Police A4

for the offence punishable under Sec. 279,   V'

and Sec. 134 of the Motor Vehicle: Act.  it

of the scooter KA.ii/H-8598. ',l.lhe   on"

basis of the report  the la€[otor"'-«Vehicle
Inspector and   due to the rash
and negligent driving of llthel 'accident has

took place.

12. 'i'hon_gh-~..ti?i-ed that he was aged
about    salary of $4,500/* per

month, no doczlrnent'Ah'asl..'o'been produced to show that

  getting l.sa1a1f_y__of €4,500/~. In the absence of

Vl'-theV'sarne,"~thve:l"'-.ribunal taking into consideration the

monthly  the claimant at $2000/-- and applying

 'the  of 16 has awarded a sum of $26,720/--

   the future loss of income, €10,000/~ towards

V'  and suffering, 12000/~ towards food and



10

nourishment. In all a sum of $38,720/-- is awarded.

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal 

accordance with Motor vehicie Act. As could  "

from the Driving Licence produced

date of birth of appellant is  

has been took place on   is it

aged about 25 'years V asonivtitheiVr,:§iate.._gof the accident.
Further, the appellant   as a
driver having  --   taking into
consideration -- is very meager.
Even   can earn ?'.3,000/-
per  * In of any proof the Tribunal

ought, -to have ._,ta;kcn 'into consideration the income at

 iper'iday i.Aedi,i%.3,ooo/-- per month and should

have -compensation. Hence, the claimant is

 _ entitled for enhancement of compensation. Further, the

7wiT';'ib1p3gna1'i-'ought to have taken into consideration the

 of 18 instead of 16 as per the judgment of

it .:'..:":'3'upreme Court in the case of SARALA VERMA AND

£/



1}

OTHERS V/S DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

ANOTHER.

Hence, the claimant is entitledfor-'_4 the:OO1':0i_1c§iw*ii1g'O"~Vé

compensation:

Pain and sufferings ::  
Food 8: nourishment _   

Future lossof Ince«I1':e-- if: V"  O  
Loss of  _V   
laid 5-up _p"e;fi'od.. ,    if.  6,000

 afofsi.  69,840

13. Hencei'   is entitled for the

sf"ss:n;}si+1sat:on._of %.t69,'s4o/-- as against 38,720/-- as

 with interest at the rate of 6%

  p.a.A fr'on1___v'th.e.3'(AiOate of the dajm petition. Hence, I pass

O '  1 Oi" --  follewning:

%~



ORDER

The appeal is allowed in part. The .

entitled for the compensation of.§Z.69,84–O’/4″ d” it

(38,720/– awarded by the Tribuna_l.’~’; ‘I’h.e’*

compensation shail carry intefest at”‘the~raie 6% “pa. * ‘

from the date of c1aim,petition~;-
The second ‘is directed to

deposit the en}_iancec’jg cortipeiisation “amount within a

perioddof datevyof receipt of a copy of
this order, ”

Sd/-3
Judge