Aruna Prabhu vs S Ningappa on 4 February, 2011

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Aruna Prabhu vs S Ningappa on 4 February, 2011

Bench: B.Sreenivase Gowda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 4'?" DAY OF FEBRUARY. 201 1
IESEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.sREENN,a.$'ﬁfé%t}iw;A

M.F.A. NO. 9505 01:' 2008 (mvéxzﬁrszjg  %

M.F.A. NO.9507 01? zeggjgwgggj'   V ' I: T I

M.F.A. NO.95'i¥6'=QF 2003 in/Iv2~VI:~:[s'3--V  
M.F.A. CV1-{QB NQS.1"26;"'~125 o'F'2o%1'o

IN MFA 9505/2008  L

 , j 

Ania-aVTPr"e1bhu1,i:;:A.   _ 'V 

Wife of B1:'3L'vP'r_;1bhu,4v  _

Aged about 4?'y_€ars";-[.__ " _

Residing at '#..26{ 'Ar:---héui'a Apartments,
Noris Road; Richn10n.,r.~?{ Town,
Bg11'1ga10re.'-» _  " '
   .....   Appellant

V   _  N. S. Sanjay Gowda 82

  E-3y§'eg0Wda. N. Advs.)

;:'a,v3:Qj % % 

 A. ,§_ _'  NiI1ge1ppa,

Pr<:»prie':'.0r

M/ Vi_gr1eshwara EI1t€1"pi"iSf;'.E3,
Nin_(:har1a 2% 230, W CYOS-S.

"F" B1<>c:E«:, Sa1'121karna.ga1*.



$9

Ba11g.21i01"e » 23630 092.

{Q

National I;'1:~:suran<::e Co. Ltd.
Divis_i<3z'1a.1 ()ifi.{:e.

HI F300;', Unity Buiidizig Anz'1e:xe,
# 72, Eviission Road,

Bamgalore W 560 027.
Rep':'ese1'1f<3d by its Manager.  ,V L_  ~
.

{By Sn'. C M P00r1ach21, Adv. Ibr M/s. Lex Plexus. Adv. fdr .y « R} # Served) A This MFA is filed +:[;,v~s 173(1) of MV*{1'3xCt,. ag21ir;53{ the judgement and a\VaFd""-dfiftfd 2i2._O5.200'8 passed in MVC N05013/2006 on the: file XVI Aiiditivdnai Judge, Member, MACT, B'a~;:1éga10re,'A S'CCLI~I-- 14, _paft:1y ailowing the claim petit.iof1-- V f0r7, £ifO1jn§5r3{r' $218,011 and seeking e11ha:1cement 0f(:0n1pé:r1s:i,'t,iCfr1.9», .-

IN MFA 9E;.'i£§,/.§%09;§ 3 KaVyaVVShree,w..' V ' _ ' D/0. BfS_V. Prabht.., Aged abou. E. 22' years, _R",%.'.a§ _N0,26, A'1'eb.ana Apartments, " A _ Nori'S P.Qad, Richmond, ' 'F0w:1,"i3Vanga41()re.

... Appeliami ».f'(By£ 'SriyL1i.s N. S. Sanjay Gowda and " Byrcgowda N, Advs.

i. S Nillgappa, Proprietor / V1'gneSI'm-'21:";-1 EITiT'€3.I'}')}'iS€S. . ' 2 Ba:1g_2;a1o1j€:~-V _ Nii"1ChE1.I.'}.21. # 230, 1.5' Cross, 'F' l?31ook, S2-1i121k21.:":121g:;u1 B2iI3g8}OI'é;? -- 580 0923 w

3.\fat,i<::>na} h'1surz3.nce Co. Ltd, Div.isiona.1 Office, II} Floor, L'nity Buiiding mmextc, # 72, Mission Road, Bangalorca ~-- 5560 027.

Represented by its Ma:1agor.

(By Sri. C) Maheslx, R,1 ~» SETVEECD "

This MFA is filed U/8.173(1) 'of Act. against the judgemem and .a\Arar.d"'d:a t9d"-»2265.2098 passed in Mvc N0.5O15/20095 {En the1-fi1é"~-Qf..XVI Additional Judge, Member, MACT, sangaiorc; ;"SQCIfi.~.1?1, dismissing the Claim P93171011 for COh_:1zZ_)e:nsati»Or:."'. 1 " "

IN MFA B. S'.'.PrabhL.1, 8/ 0. B: V; Shizmbht "o.gappa, Aged about." 50» "years ; ' R;-jsiding at" #26, Archana Apartments. Noriiss Road, Riohtnond Town, Appeliant N. S. Sanjay Gowda. and ' Byregowdzz, Advs.) ' ';§.;.~1}~ImQ "

S Nmgappa.

Proprietor M/ V'ignes1nxz21.r2:z En'i:<3r_prisos, NiI1ch2:1.na. # 230, 1"" Cross, % ..V,4"Réspon_d.env:s f A' Block, E3&l.h8,kEli'I}&lgE?i3T. Baiigalore -- 560 092.

$2,-. N£1l,iC)1'1£-11 I1'"iS1l1'al1C¢3' Co. Lid. I)ivisio1'1a1 Office, Hi Floor, Unity Biiilciing Aiinexe, # 72, Mission Road, Barigaiore -» 560 02?.

Repiiesenteci by its Manager.

(By Sri. O Mahesh, Adv.

R1 ~ Served} This MFA is filed U/_s"--.,i'7:3(i) of A5011, against the judgement emd' axxrard da-i*¢d"2.2.05.2008 passed in MVC No.5014/2006 on i}he?Vj.iile Additional Judge, Member, MACT, Bangalore', ='SCC'i:l.§.3 partly allowing the Claim petitio,r1""'f'of Coinpeinszitzilon and seeking enhancem:ei":i._Vo'_f co;r_npen.saiio'11.,_"- .. IN MFA? 'lil--:ae'/203.1 l\latio'i1,;§1I' ' .

Divisional Office, ill Floor, U;_iiity_ Buildﬁig Annexe, $09.. 72 M>Lssioi'i ._Bai1g'a:l0_1'er.__~ 560 027. A 'Rep. by:

The ,é.idri2i'r1isi:rai.ive Officer, National Insuraiiee Co. Ltd"

* .B2111gé11.ore, V. _Re;gic3r1al Office, Siibharam Complex.

144, l\/iahaima. Gandhi Road, ' Bangalore M 560 O0}, . Crosss Objeeim"

.. R«'3f5LL)(}'}'Vid(3VI1'(.S 7. U:

{By M,' L('3Xp1€'.XE,,1.S. S1'iy'ut:s. C M Paolaacifza aI1<:1A- Nageah? Adxsaa) AND 1, Aruna Prabhu.


W/0. of B S Prabhu,

Aged about 45 years,

Residing at NO. 26,

Archana Apartments,    A

Noris Road. Richmond '1'0vi:fn L ' Bangaiore . ' A' '2. SN1ngappa, Proprietor, ' _ M / s. Vigneshwa;-ra Enterprises-»,a._ Ninchana, N0 23_O}- 15*-'_Cr50s.S~-._'».4a Biock. sahakarnagar.


Bangaiora» 580_C*92". V V '
.    V' t   Respondents

(By Q'   Adv. for R. 1 ,
 """   _    with)

'Ih:s MFA_.C-zr0h"in_Mfa.No.9505/2008 filed U/O 41 Ruie 22 CPC, .R/W'n§3eC.173[1] of MV Act, against the judgment 'ar,1d' ~a"wa'1'd dt.22.05.2008 passed in MVC. NV0'§'5O13,/2OO6"'0r1____tl=1e me of the XVI Additionai Judge, Bangalore, awarding a compensation of interest @ 8% pa from the date of .p€_tit1ori"--«f;§11 {E-eposit. IN'«MFA' (#103 125/2010 'ﬁéatioraai Insu..1'an(:e Co. Ltd, ;Div'isic3r1a1 Office, " ' "HI F1001', Unity BLtiidi11g Ararzexe, No.72, Mission Road, Ba.:1ga1ore 560 02?.

Ap'pe11am': is Rep. hf3I'E3i1"l by:

The Adm.ir1ist.rat:ive Off"1'<r<~:»'r, Natiorral 1r1surar1C<:: Co. Ltd., Ballgalore, Regionai Office, Subharam Cornpiex, 1.44, Mahatnm Gandhi Road.

Bangalore ~ 560 (301. _- - V _ ' Cross obje§:t,o1'«' (By M/ Lexplexus Sriyuts. C M Poor}ac;h.a A, AND .1. B S Prabhu Age: 50 years, V _ u S/ o. Sh.a:r1bu1ir;_igap'pe;, _ V_ ~ Residing , E'-Io';--26,_ Arohans 'Apartments, Norgié '€{_oaG',"1I{iChV1a3ond"--Towr;,r Bar:§.§a1or£;. ' ~ Proprietor.' " A_ 2 = M] s... Vi.gnesf1war é; Elntzerprises. ' = Ninchaxlag 7a\§o. 23O, 13* Cross. Block, Sahakamagar, "'Ba.riga1ore -- 560 092.

f\.} ... Respondents N. S. Sanjay Gowda, Adv. for R1, ' 2 'notice to R2 dispensed with) "rhzs MFA.Crob in MFA.No.95o7/2008 "filed U/O Ruie 22 of CPC, against. the judgment. and award.

"df.22.05.2008 passsed in Mvc_No.5o14/2005 on the ﬁle F of the XV I Additional Judge, MACT, Bangalore, awarding a oomper2.sat.ion of Rss.1,3'7, 100/-- with interest @ 6% pa. from the. date of p(3tiT,i{)1'.1 tiil deposit. £2-; .

375/ These M13-'AS and MFA Cross Objeetioriss Coming on for Acimiss'i.ori, this day; the Court; delivereci the ioiitiwing:

JUDGMENT' As these appeals and cross objettt'iona;"a;f«e;a_ria:;rig out of a Common judgmerit and award_o1'7»th'<: 'i"r::i'13>L1:'3a1,-..V they are heard together. adr'ait.t,edz of finally with the consent eiiflearnhed 'CoLi1.1s'e'1;vappearirighe. for the parties.

2. Brief facts of in the claim petitioris V A L V J the claimants were trav;a11ir1§i" _ 'hearing registration No. KA~O2;;_3L;"FL£mkur to attend marriage, and wjljsenthey reaChedV'near Veerananjepura cross on N.H.4 taluk, the driver of the lorry bearing . 54 Carrie with high speed in a rash and }"i:1",¥._);1§'L--§.¢V__?':3€.31"'.t;'i'f.; manner and took Sudden deviation to his Virighths and dashed against the car. As a resuit, the hclairriants sustained injuries Hence, they filed three separate eiairn petitions before the MACT, Bangalore, seeking e0rnper1sat;ieii. The 'l"'r'ibunal allowed MVC l'€o.50l3/()6 and MVC i\E0.50l4,/'O8 filed by S-mt, Arum:

Prabhu 211151 Sri. B .S. Prabh L1 and ziweirded C0mpe'r1sai'.ic)r3_ of R5s.7O,O00/~ and ~ respectively and dismissed MVC "

their daughter.

.3. Aggrieved by the; quantuni ofT:..é;:d:ri1.;3er1Sl:itiei1.L awarded by the Tribunal, lltiiieclainiantér pireferredl in MFA Nos. 9505/{)l8;itaa3dVii'~e.i950e/08 seeking enhaneemer1t__oi' eorr1.peri.s2rti0r1 N().95G7/O8 is filed by the order of the Trilziuneilli claim petition. whereas insurer has' "Objeet.i0ns in MFA Nos. 9505 and eheillenging the award made in the 'A p_e1':itfion of the owner cum driver of the ear and _'5§f;i.§s "*:Fitfe the gretmd of negligence as well as Ep.1a:*§tu;~n. Therefore, points arise for Consideration is: Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accident was occurred due to sole negligent, driving of lorry by its driver and fast.enir1g_;" the entire liability on the insurer of the lorry and whether quarztum of ec>mpens21i',i0'r1 awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasouab1.e or does it call for ei1l1a.riceme11i. or rcdtietion and 'whether it is jL1Slll£lf3Cl in dis'11iissi11g the elaim pet.it._1'en of their da11.ig_;lii:er 'L?'

4. Learned Ceurisel appearing for the insurcérei' ierry si,1bn1it.s, both the vehicles were proceeding in:

direction from East to West. Since t.he:"

driver of the car drove his careirra high lwii:hx'an ' intention to over take the lorry"ha's_ caused t1'1e«.ae_c'iden_i, and the Tribunal xvithout"*~..consid.ering*_; this"'"aspectl,' eornniitted an errorgin hel'Ciin:g that the"ac:'cident was occurred due to sole negiigerlc:'e on'-the' 'gart of the driver 'La of the lorry. Mjllterrlatiiirellv, the quantum of compensation _'al3wa1~d:e'd.,_i§_ not just and reasonable. He further.__s'ubn"1its,'=there._ is he infirmity in the order of the Tribunal llirrdilsrnissing the claim petition of the "arid helllhrays for dismissal of the appeals of . i.-he.e'iai'it:iaiiVt.vs"and allowing the Cross Objections. 51- .-__Lear'hed Counsel appearing for the claimants "V A. st_'1bnii'ts, immediately after the aC(?i{il€I1i, the datlghter oI"'the owner (ILZITE driver of car lodged a complaint to the " Police zigainsi the driver of offeit1di.r1g lorry stating that, ..

10 on aeiteuhii. of his "rash and negiig;ei1tl driving of lorry the aee.idei1t was oeeurred and ae€:.i<3n may be taken against. him. The Police after invesi.iga..t,i:1g the mat:t;e'r'--.Tfiled charge sheet: against the driver of the ' he Tribunal considering all these aspects 'righiilyj iée'l'd_,u the accident. was eeeiirred due, toselfe l1:1e"gligeh1;' vvdriyirig of the driver of the lorry there is no said fi'I1diE1g of the 'for; dismissal of the Cross Objeet,idr1Sf __s11l:)rIiits quantum of conipensstien of owner Cum driver jiistehldllllreasonable, it is on the their appeal may be alioieed may be enhanced. With regardllto_Vdvisrriisssl elaim petition of their daughter, siibrnitsll "i'.he..._.T1'ib11rial has dismissed her 'petition V ground that she did not lead any evidence. l' so because she was out of country at the time ef her trial and now she has come down to India, r may be given. an opportunity to lead evidence and take a decision on merits.

Ii

6. Poiiee :°ee0rd.<.+s nameiy FIR. cen."1pEaini'., :m1'h21zar arid ttharge sheet niarkeci as E2xs'P.1, P2, P3 and Pi} disclose, both the veh_ic3es were proceeding in the same direction on Turrzkur ~ BE1I"lg211()I't3, N.H.4 roe1civV.anhdc.i0r1y was proceeding ahead of the car. At of accident, lorry took 21 sudden de:viatic)n..tQ am came in Contact with the cair, :Natju1'--2111yf. "--0Wner ..;:;1_1'n1 driver of the car could .1*i0t. have etoppred (jar am. thus, it caused the £1cciden'ti;,:: If _t.he.'d.r:ive1' the lorry had not taken sudden _right_ he had left some space for theaear divas no occasion for the ~ 1

7. The »c'I'iV].;drry' who contends, the driver cum ownerdef' contributed for the accident, chxO0eeVv_tc_examiz'1e either the driver of the lorry ' 1"-air' a:.r1ycctVi'i'e1_* person on their behaif, 'whereas the 0wn_er cum' 'ci1'*.'iLf.reA'1I'-"cat the car and his wife have produced both tirziivaand docunientary evidence in support of their V ice-ntent.i<)11 that the accident was 0ce'u1*red due to rash and ne§g1ige'nt. driving of lorry by its driver. The Tribunal eo11stderi11g the Peiicte reeerds and ()i".h€I' era} and d_eetm1e'm:ary evicientée on record righth; held that the accident was occurred due to sale n«:;§gEjT.ge'nt drix.-*ir1g ef the lorry by its driver. 1 have the filqding of the '}Z'1'ibu.t1ai and find no the same. Accordingly, it is C0§%;fir:n.eci. " . "

8. New I have to wheth.'e--1:_ "v_1qi;:e'f1tu'tn of eompensemon E1\Va.:"CEf:d b37"'t1'1e"T ftb_una1"1n the case of wife of the owner of theVc3§r'é1131d__..ti1.the'~_r:ase of owner of the ear, is :ree_s<:=hab1e '~€'1Il(iW\Vfi}fi€'[h(31" dismissal of claim petité::Q"ﬂ» 0f""th4e'i7§«.dau.g§hter' is just and proper or not;

MFA 1$fo.95oV?.s /2003:."

Mve«Nn.t.5013/2006, claimant is Smt. Aruna V is the wife of owner of the car. As per '' 'V't:'iV;e}i"tifieate -- Ex.P.6, she had sustained the foltewingg injuries :

1) Fxfacture of shaft of humerus radical nerve

2) Fracture of left upper incisor teeth

3) Laeerateci weund ever the tower tip 3 ems.

4) Lacerated wound over the left. hypoehondrium E3) lvluhipie 13.ee;'at.ed woun<;1s ow:-:1" ieft forearm

6) L:;1ce1'at.ed. wound over right. forearm 7') Le1c:erat.ed wound over left middie fingef' "

She was treated inpatient fro.m:"vV.19{3-.06 'toe 23--3~()8 at Harsha H0sp:i§';.21i,'-A- Nehfne1t1géi§19é';V-eI_dVjwﬂltd continued treatment. §'np2_1tienI.~,_in Ma.ni'pa1_4_V_Ho_§;pita1'."L. Her contention that after____1fi'er_ dischdarged from Harsha Hospital, she continued' tre2it1j1ent;t ,Manipa1 Hospital, is not supported by'eanty: do§3ur1:e}:1.t.}:t:*y' evidence. The doctor not5i.e;>§an1ijned.. regarding nature of injuries sustained" suffered.

10. 'e.gns1deeriﬁ§;' ::1%ie.t"':i§1ture of injuries, Rs.80,000/- awifgtéirded Tnbunal towards pain and suffering is » lower side and it is deserved to be enhanced by R':e.é0.000/~ and I award Rs.50,00()/~ 'under u As Rs.16,000 / - awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is per "medical bills produced by cr0mpensat'.io1'1 towards 10:5:-3 of fu.t.ure income does net. ari$<-3.

15. In the abse'r1C<3 of examining the <:10(:t,0r..rega.rdiv11g disability Rs.8,000/- awarded by the 'mh;;na41f{%:l:itg;1I:»d{s%«_ loss cf arn<3:c1it'1r-as is just and proper. an--d i"i; "Ci€.it:.<sV'11c'):: C':~_:V11 for inte1'ferenC€3;.

16. Thus, the c1ai1'naI1t Vvfaddiiionai compensation of Rs*;--§i5,.OQO,§'5 'wiif[.}.1A"'i:;t,erest at 6% pa. from the date 0fA""{;'}3:i;ir_1V"{iii} the date of 1*(2a1isa'{ip;*1 ' "

1§d%.9£io§f:20Q:3§'[ %

17. Claimant is B.S.Prabhu, owner _ﬁriyer E)? th_e,::ar. He has sustained. the following _u'r-v.i§5s;' ' --.

Fracture of 8,4,5.6 and 7 ribs on right side; ' Fracture of ieft tibial codyle;

3) Contusion of knee:

4) I.,acer21i:ed Wound over left eye brow in injuries sust.a.i:1ed and treaimeni: taken by him are evident {mm wourid eeri:ifiCat,e Ex. P 10, Medieai Certificate Ex P 11 and supp01"i.er:i by oral exiideiése of the eiaimzmi. examined PW 2. He has ne€;--.e_2;«:2i__nii*riVesj;

the doctor regarding disability .

18. Considering the nai"L1re 0fa'injiu_ries if1diC:21E3d' wound (:ertifi_eai:e Rs.5{},(i0O:';/1.0axvaiyﬁied-10y; tu1*ie"""i"ri'1::>unaI' V towards pain and siii7fe1*ingg'i's'*0i; 10\x%er"sie1e and it is deserved to be enha.neee1 ~ and 1 award Rs.60,000 ibis §i;eaid::"'ii .0 V 19, "R.':3_i'5G':,i;1'_Q0[:; flay the Tribuiiai towards iriediﬁii : ''based on the medical bills pr0du0Veci._Vii byx' " ciaima.nt, there is no scope for

-.e;f'}ha.3:ice;11erit" under this head. treated as inpatient in Mailyai Hospital. fi'0m..V:i'3-.':LO2.2OO6 to 01.03.2006 for 10 days. But his V " Viepniention that after his discharge from Mailya Hospital Continued treatment in Manipal Hospital is not established. C0nside1"ing the nature of injuries arid 55' 37 duratiion oft,1*eatmem: as ir1pat'ieI1t Rs.10.000/~ awarded by the Tribtinal towards .iocider1t.a1 expenzsesz su<:h 21$ corn/e.yance9 nourishment and at,t.eI1d2m.t che1rges'i'$,;'t1st. and proper and it does; not cal} for int.e1'i'e1'en<:e--..' . L'

21. T he claimant eiaims to h2we--.been §x?t)ifigirig__j;1s'i'._aV partnei' in Globe Sales and Se:1iviC;esé and._WaVs..e'ai*niiig Rs.1.50,000/~ pm. In he {T V returns EX P 14 whieifi totai"ti1'1come was Rs.7,22,483/~ per produced the relevant for 3 years prior to after the accident. On the he has stated that he Centixriidedi business even after sustaining imuries in the accident. Thus no A «.eo:n;5eins%ati_on can be awarded towards future loss of ._

22." V Considering the nature of '1n_juries and duration of Rs.l5,000/~ awarded by the Tribunal} towards 1033 of income during treatment period is just and proper and it does not caﬂ for ioterferemte. 18 23, In the absence of examining the de:>ct.0r regarding disability 12,090/~ awarded by the Trribtmai ttgwards loss of amer1.it:ies is just and proper emd it d0e$*';'i1et"'eai1 for interference.

24. Thus, the claimant is e1jt.it1ed.fi~i'ueer eompensatiion of Rs.10,000.,_/'_g w§th'V'i.nte1*e.estt.VA:6% from the date of e1aim____t:"petiti_»0:0. date of realisation.

MFA.NO. 9*5i1~f7;i:g.{oi13:aL 25_ ;;§3.ot:f1:seV1 t appeétring for the claimant contentie the ciaim petition the claimant Ms. Ketvygi the country in order to get a therefore she executed a General V ﬁttorney in favour of her father and the "ffibu_né11'i.hé1s dismissed her cia:im petition solely on the gm"L1 I_id that she has not led any evidence. Now the V v.__efg;imant has come back and she is ready to lead evidence and he requests for etliowing the appeal and remamiing the matter for reeer1side1*at.ion afresh. 19

28. Per contra, Ieari/zed CG'L"1I1S€1 appearing' for the insurer of the offending Vehieie submits that wiien the claimant had given power of attorney in her father, nothing prevented him from gi$.{i:1g..VVevitdei1ee'en7»_ her behalf and getting a it therefere, there is no scope fer 'at1emvi_ng _T.3~'i.€AE'1I3:J{I§€'§t1..éiTl.{'}.V remanding the matter. su°E'>1nits'.vthe;f, Virtue of amendment ':0 "i4\et,'_'d for claim petition removed and the éapetition and she may be given: eiaim petition if she so

27._ Aeeefciinigiy ti<_1»e"e;i)peai is dismissed. The elaimant g}-iberty todVfii'e"iresh claim petition, if she S0 desires V of this appeal will not come in her way (if a. ciaim petition before the Tribunal. .1 ' 28,.' Véiccoraingiy MFA i\2'os.9505/2008 and 9506/2008 eiiewed in part to the extent stated herein above.

"The eiaimant in MFA 9505/08 is entitled for an acicii"ti0I1aI e::c3Inpe11s;at,i(}:t1 of Rs.25,000/i and the {:Ia1'mam' in ';\/{FA NUEQSOG/()8 is; e::1'{:it.Ieci for an ad<:iit.i0na} <:<)mpens21t:i0n of Rs.1.O,0O0/A with i1.1teres1: at 8% 13.21. from the date of claim petition till of reziiisation.

29. In View of aliowing the .(513je:3t10nS'.L' filed by the Iiasurance companvyé ate? ' N0 order as to c()st. ._ "'-V _ % saw % §§E§§

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court