Karnataka High Court
Raghavendra S/O Premanathsa Kathare vs Chandrashekar S/O Somashekhar Halmath on 13 July, 2012
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala, B.Sreenivase Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF JULY 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVATSALA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE
GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NOS.8215/2007
C/W
20462/2008
MFA NO.8215/2007
BETWEEN
M/s. United India Insurance
Company Limited,
Divisional Office,
LEA Complex,
I Floor,
Near Corporation Office,
Dharwad,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager. Appellant
(By Sri Shashank Hegde & Smt. Preeti Shashank,
Advs., for Sri A M Venkatesh, Adv., for appellant)
2
AND
1. Raghavendra,
S/o Premanathsa Kathare,
Age: 27 years,
Occ: Partner of
M/s. K C Kathare and Sons Bar,
Line Bazar,
Dharwad,
R/o Mahindrakar Chawl,
Charwad.
2. Chandrashekhar,
S/o Somashekhar Halmath,
Age: Major,
Occ: Driver cum Owner of
Hero Honda Bike,
R/o Sheelvantar Oni,
Dharwad. Respondents
(By Sri A R Sharadamba, Adv., for R-1)
(By Smt. V Vidya, Adv., for Sri K Raghavendra Rao,
Adv., for R-2)
MFA NO.20462/2008
BETWEEN
Raghavendra,
S/o Premanathsa Kathare,
Age: 28 years,
R/at I Cross,
Mahendrakar Chawl,
3
Near K C Park,
Dharwad. Appellant
(By Sri K Raghavendra Rao and Smt. V Vidya,
Advs., for appellant)
AND
1. Chandrashekhar,
S/o Somashekhar Halmath,
Age: Major,
Occ: Driver cum Owner of Honda Bike,
R/o Sheelavantar Oni,
Dharwad.
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office,
LEA Complex, I Floor,
Near Corporation Office,
Dharwad,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager. Respondents
(By Sri B K Malligawad, Adv., for R-1)
(By Sri Shashank Hegde, Adv., for
Sri A M Venkatesh, Adv., for R-2)
---
M F A No.8215/2007 is filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the
judgment and award dated 31.10.2006 passed in M V
C No.605/2003 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (SD) &
4
CJM/Addl. MACT, Dharwad, awarding compensation of
Rs.5,46,000/- with interest @ 8! Per annum from the
date of Petition till realisation.
M F A No.20462/2008 is filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the
judgment and award dated 31.10.2006 passed in MVC
No.605/2003 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.)
& CJM/Addl. MACT, Dharwad, partly allowing the claim
petition for compensation and seeking enhancement
of compensation.
These Appeals coming on for hearing, the same
having been heard and reserved for pronouncement of
Judgment, Dr. Bhakthavatsala, J., delivered the
following:
COMMON JUDGMENT
These two appeals, one by the Insurance Company and another by the claimant are directed against the Judgment and Award dated 31.10.2006 made in MVC No.605/2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge/Addl. MACT at Dharwad.
2. We have heard common arguments.
5
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the claimant Raghavendra himself was driving the motor-cycle bearing No.KA-25/K-2743 and due to his rash and negligent driving of the motor-cycle, he lost control and fell down along with pillion rider- Chandrashekar. He further submits that owner of the motor-cycle, viz., Chandrashekar, who is Respondent No.2 in MFA No.8215/2007 and Respondent No.1 in MFA No.20462/2008, lodged complaint against the claimant Raghavendra. But a false complaint came to be registered against owner of the motor-cycle and in spite of adducing evidence of the Authorised Officer of the Insurance Company, the Tribunal erred in answering Issue Nos.1 and 2 on the point of negligence in favour of the claimant. He further submits that the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant compensation.
6
4. Learned counsel appearing for the injured claimant submits that the motor-cycle was being driven by its owner Chandrashekar and the injured claimant was travelling as a pillion rider and due to rash and negligent driving of the motor-cycle by Chandrashekar, he lost control over the vehicle and in that accident, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries and he became unconscious; his elder brother (P.W.3) came to the spot and took him to the hospital for treatment and also lodged complaint against owner of the motor-cycle. Police filed a chargesheet against the owner-cum-rider of the motor-cycle and the Tribunal has rightly answered Point Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the claimant and there is no illegality or infirmity in so far as answering Issue Nos.1 and 2. He further submits that merely because the authorised officer of the Insurance Company was 7 examined and got marked deposition of the witnesses in C.C.No.95/2003 and Judgment of acquittal as per Ex.R1 to R5 are not sufficient to hold that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor-cycle by the injured himself. In so far as quantum of compensation, he submits that on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant, resulted in paralysis and he is unable to sign and sustained permanent disablement to the extent of 80%, but the Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation. She prays for enhancement of compensation.
5. In view of the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, only point that arises for our consideration is:
"Whether the impugned Judgment and Award call for our interference?" 8
6. Our answer to the above point is as per final order.
7. In so far as the case of the claimant that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor-cycle by Chandrashekar is concerned, he has got examined his elder brother/P.W.3, who lodged complaint against Chandrashekar and also got marked the document, viz., FIR etc. Police filed charge sheet as against the owner-cum-rider in C.C.No.95/2003. Though owner-cum-rider of the motor-cycle filed written statement contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor-cycle by deceased himself and that he was a pillion-rider, he did not step into the witness box and prove the same. The Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence while answering Issue Nos.1 and 2, viz., on the point of negligence. In our view, it 9 is a fit case to remand the matter to the Tribunal on that score.
8. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, claimant has deposed that he was about to marry, but after he met with an accident and he is paralyzed, his marriage proposal was broken and there is permanent disablement between 70% to 80%. It is the case of the claimant that he was a partner of M/s.Kathare and sons and earning Rs.10,000/- p.m., but the Tribunal has fixed his income at Rs.3,000/- p.m., and taken permanent disablement at 50% instead of 80% of the whole body and compensation of Rs.5,46,000/- awarded is on the lower side. Therefore, the claimant is before this Court for enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal has fixed income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- p.m., 10 and permanent disablement at 50% and applied multiplier 17 and awarded compensation as under:
Rs.
i) Loss of future earning (Rs.1,500/- x 12 x 17) 3,06,000-00
ii) Pain and suffering 25,000-00
iii)Loss of amenities 50,000-00
iv) Medical expenses 1,40,000-00
v) Future medical expenses 25,000-00
--------------------
Total 5,46,000-00
--------------------
9. The claimant has sustained head injury and there is a voluminous medical record. If the claimant is really suffering from permanent disablement between 70% to 80% of the whole body, he is entitled for adequate compensation. Under such circumstances, compensation of Rs.3,06,000/-
awarded towards loss of future earning and other heads is on the lower side. He claims that he was 23 11 years old, a partner in partnership firm and the accident occurred in the year 2002. He has not produced any record to show about his income and educational qualification. It is also the case of the claimant that he lost marriage prospects after the motor accident. Under such circumstances, it would meet the end of justice to remit the matter to the Tribunal for affording an opportunity of adducing further evidence by the claimant, both on the point of negligence and quantum of compensation and disposel of the case afresh, in accordance with law. Accordingly, we answer the point for consideration.
10. In the result, we pass the following Order:
The impugned Judgment and Award dated 31.10.2006 made in MVC No.605/2003 on the file of Principal Civil Judge/Addl. MACT at Dharwad, are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal with a 12 direction to permit the parties to adduce further evidence both on the point of negligence and quantum of compensation and dispose off the same, afresh, in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 31.08.2012 for further proceedings, without notice. The Registry is directed to return LCR to the Tribunal and refund the statutory amount in deposit to the Insurance Company. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE bnv*