1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.50 OF 2013(MV)
C/W
MFA NOs.4499/2013(MV), 4500/2013(MV),
4501/2013(MV), 49/2013(MV), 51/2013(MV) &
52/2013(MV)
IN MFA 50/2013
BETWEEN:
M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.4/3/1 AND 3/2M, 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 011.
NOW BY
#28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR,
CENTENARY BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS ZONAL SR.MANAGER.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.D.S.SRIDHAR, ADV. )
AND
1. KANTHARAJU
S/O SRI. REVANNA SIDDAIAH
AGED 40 YEARS
AVARAHALLI VILLAGE & POST
KAILANCHA HOBLI,
2
RMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT-571511.
2. V.RAMESH
S/O VARDE GOWDA, MAJOR
M/S MANJUNATHA TRANSPORT
NO.330/5, 1ST CROSS, YEDIYUR
7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 070.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.N.HARISH BABU, ADV. FOR R1:
APPEAL DISMISSED AGAINST R2
V/O DATED:22.03.2018)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:04.09.2012 PASSED IN MVC No.6201/2010 ON
THE FILE OF THE 22ND ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT,
BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,15,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
IN MFA 4499/2013
BETWEEN:
RAJASHEKHARAPPA
S/O SHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
C/O #56, 3RD MAIN, 1ST CROSS
NEW EXTENSION
NEAR GOVERNMENT P.U.COLLEGE
K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560 036.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.K.N.HARISH BABU, ADV. )
3
AND
1. MR. V.RAMESH
S/O VARDE GOWDA, AGED MAJOR
M/S MANJUNATHA TRANSPORT
NO.330/5, 1ST CROSS
YEDIYUR, 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 011.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.4/3-1 AND 3/2M 11TH MAIN,
3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 061.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CENTRAL OFFICE, KSRTC
K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 027.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.1001/56, JAYALAKSHMI MANSON
2ND FLOOR, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.D.S. SRIDHAR, ADV. FOR R2:
SRI.B.PALAKSHAIAH, ADV. FOR R3:
SRI. A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADV. FOR R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:04.09.2012 PASSED IN MVC No.4903/2010
4
ON THE FILE OF THE 22ND ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT,
BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATIONS.
IN MFA 4500/2013
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHIVA SHANKAR
S/O LATE K.T. BALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
NO.664/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD
RANGANATHAPURA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD
VIJAYANAGAR-NORTH, BANGALORE-560 079.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.K.N.HARISH BABU, ADV.)
AND
1. MR. V.RAMESH
S/O VARDE GOWDA, AGED MAJOR
M/S MANJUNATHA TRANSPORT
NO.330/5, 1ST CROSS
YEDIYUR, 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 011.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.4/3-1 AND 3/2M 11TH MAIN,
3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 061.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.D.S. SRIDHAR, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
5
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:04.09.2012 PASSED IN MVC No.6200/2010 ON
THE FILE OF THE 22ND ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT,
BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATIONS.
IN MFA 4501/2013
BETWEEN:
SRI.NANJUNDAPPA
S/O LATE. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NO.2, NARASIMHA NILAYA
SIMHA LAYOUT
UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE-560 061.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.K.N.HARISH BABU, ADV. )
AND
1. MR. V.RAMESH
S/O VARDE GOWDA, AGED MAJOR
M/S MANJUNATHA TRANSPORT
NO.330/5, 1ST CROSS
YEDIYUR, 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 011.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.4/3-1 AND 3/2M 11TH MAIN,
6
3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 061.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CENTRAL OFFICE, KSRTC
K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 027.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.1001/56, JAYALAKSHMI MANSON
2ND FLOOR, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.D.S. SRIDHAR, ADV. FOR R2:
SRI.B.PALAKSHAIAH, ADV. FOR R3:
SRI. A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADV. FOR R4:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED:06.11.2019)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:04.09.2012 PASSED IN MVC No.4902/2010 ON
THE FILE OF THE 22ND ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT,
BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATIONS.
IN MFA 49/2013
BETWEEN:
M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.4/3/1 AND 3/2M, 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK
7
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 011.
NOW BY
#28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR,
CENTENARY BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS ZONAL SR.MANAGER.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.D.S.SRIDHAR, ADV. )
AND
1. RAJASHEKARAPPA
S/O SRI.SHANKARAPPA
AGED 36 YEARS
C/O NO.56, 3RD MAIN
FIRST CROSS, NEW EXTENSION
NEAR GOVT,P.U.COLLEGE
K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560 079.
2. V.RAMESH
S/O VARDE GOWDA, MAJOR
M/S MANJUNATHA TRANSPORT
NO.330/5, 1ST CROSS, YEDIYUR
7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 070.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CENTRAL OFFICE
KSRTC, K.H. ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 027.
4. M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.1001/56, JALAKSHMI MANSON
2ND FLOOR, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD
8
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.N.HARISH BABU, ADV. FOR R1:
R2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED:
SRI. B.PALAKSHAIAH, ADV. FOR R3:
SRI. A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADV.FOR R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:04.09.2012 PASSED IN MVC No.4903/2010 ON
THE FILE OF THE 22ND ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT,
BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.3,40,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% FOR
RS.3,15,000/- EXCULDING FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES
(OF RS.25000/-. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
DEPOSIT.
IN MFA 51/2013
BETWEEN:
M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.4/3/1 AND 3/2M, 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 011.
NOW BY
#28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR,
CENTENARY BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS ZONAL SR.MANAGER.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.D.S.SRIDHAR, ADV. )
9
AND
1. SHIVASHANKAR
S/O LATE. SRI. K.T.BALAKRISHNA
AGED 48 YEARS
NO.664/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD
RANGANATHAPURA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD
VIJAYANAGARA NORTH
BANGALORE-560 079.
2. V.RAMESH
S/O VARDE GOWDA, MAJOR
M/S MANJUNATHA TRANSPORT
NO.330/5, 1ST CROSS, YEDIYUR
7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 070.
.
.. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.N.HARISH BABU, ADV. FOR R1:
APPEAL DISMISSED AGAINST R2
V/O DATED:22.03.2018)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:04.09.2012 PASSED IN MVC No.6200/2010 ON
THE FILE OF THE 22ND ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT,
BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,64,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FOR
Rs.4,49,500/- (EXCULDING FUTURE MEDICAL
EXPENSES OF RS.15000/-) FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
10
IN MFA 52/2013
BETWEEN:
M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.4/3/1 AND 3/2M, 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 011.
NOW BY
#28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR,
CENTENARY BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS ZONAL SR.MANAGER.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.D.S.SRIDHAR, ADV. )
AND
1. NANJUNDAPPA
S/O LATE. SRI. NARYANAPPA
AGED 54 YEARS
NO.2, NARASIMHA NILAYA
SIMHA LAYOUT, CHIKKALLASNADRA
UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE-560 061.
2. V.RAMESH
S/O VARDE GOWDA, MAJOR
M/S MANJUNATHA TRANSPORT
NO.330/5, 1ST CROSS, YEDIYUR
7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 070.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CENTRAL OFFICE
KSRTC, K.H. ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
11
BANGALORE-560 027.
4. M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.1001/56, JALAKSHMI MANSON
2ND FLOOR, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.N.HARISH BABU, ADV. FOR R1:
APPEAL IS DISMISSED AGAINST R2
V/O DATED:22.03.2018
SRI. B.PALAKSHAIAH, ADV. FOR R3:
SRI. A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADV.FOR R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:04.09.2012 PASSED IN MVC No.4902/2010 ON
THE FILE OF THE 22ND ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT,
BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.2,95,800/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% FOR
RS.2,65,800/- EXCULDING FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES
(OF RS.30000/-. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
DEPOSIT.
THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
MFA.Nos.50/2013, 52/2013, 51/2013 and 49/2013 are filed by the Insurance Company and 12 MFA.Nos.4501/2013, 4500/2013 and 4499/2013 are filed by the claimants, under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) have been filed being aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.09.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Since, all these appeals arise out of the same accident as well as a common judgment, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated are that on 20.06.2010 at about 3.00 a.m., the claimant in MVC.No.6201/2010 as a driver and claimant in MVC.No.6200/2010 as a conductor and inmates were traveling in KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-42/F-191, from Mysore to Bangalore on B.M.Road, near Kallugoppahalli Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, at that time, the KSRTC bus, being driven by its driver, dashed against a Lorry 13 bearing Reg.No.KA-05/D-1436, which was parked on the road without putting parking signal, headlights and any indicator. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimants sustained injuries and were hospitalized.
3. The claimants filed their respective petitions under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the claimant in MVC.4902/2010 was doing mason work and was earning Rs.300/- per day, the claimant in MVC.No.6201/2010 was a driver in KSRTC bus and was earning Rs.11,000/- per month, the claimant in MVC.4903/2010 was a Senior Officer at M/s. Jubliant Organization Ltd., Nanjangudu and was drawing salary of 26,000/- per month and the claimant in MVC.6200/2010 was a Conductor in KSRTC Bus and was drawing a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. The claimants claimed compensation as stated in their respective petitions along with interest. 14
4. On service of summons, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their detailed written statement, in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded by the respondent No.1 that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of KSRTC bus and it was not due to any negligence on the part of the driver of Lorry. It was further pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident and the liability, if any, is to be paid by the respondent No.2. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
It was pleaded by respondent No.2 that the averments made in column Nos.1 to 22 are denied. It was further pleaded that the accident was occurred solely on the negligent driving of the driver of KSRTC 15 bus and it was not due to any negligent on the part of the driver of the lorry. It was further pleaded that the driver of the lorry was holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. It was further pleaded that the policy was in force as on the date of accident and the liability, if any, is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
It was pleaded by respondent No.3 that the averments made at column Nos.1 to 22 are denied. It was further pleaded that the driver of KSRTC Bus drove the same slowly and cautiously and the accident was occurred only due to negligent parking of the Lorry in the middle of the road by its driver. It was further pleaded that KSRTC Bus was insured with respondent No.4 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident and the liability, if any, is to be paid 16 by respondent No.4. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
It was pleaded by respondent No.4 that the averments made at column Nos.1 to 22 are denied. It was further pleaded that the accident was occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of Lorry and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of Bus. It was further pleaded that the policy was in force as on the date of accident and the liability, if any, is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined claimant Nanjundappa in MVC.4902/2010, claimant Shivashankar H.B. in MVC.6200/2010, claimant Kantharaj in MVC.6201/2010, claimant R ajashekarappa in 17 MVC.4903/2010 as PWs-1 to 4 respectively and examined Dr.Mallinath as PW-5 and got exhibited 40 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P40. On behalf of respondents, examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW.2 and they have not exhibited any documents. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles i.e., Lorry to the extent of 70% and KSRTC Bus to the extent of 30%, as a result of which, the claimants sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that claimants in MVC.Nos.4902/2010, 4903/2010, 6200/2010 and 6201/2010 are entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,95,800/-, Rs.3,40,000/-, Rs.1,64,500/- and Rs.1,15,500/- respectively along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the insurer of Lorry and KSRTC Bus to deposit the compensation amount at the ratio of 70% and 30% 18 respectively along with interest. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed.
IN MFA.50/2013 arising out of MVC.6201/2010:
6. Sri. D.S.Sridhar, the learned counsel for Insurance Company has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, due to the accident the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature and there is no loss of income due to disability. The Tribunal is not justified in granting Rs.75,000/- under the head of 'loss of income due to disability'.
Secondly, the claimant was inpatient for a period of 5 days and the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'pain and sufferings' and 'loss of amenities' are on the higher side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
19
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following counter- contentions:
Firstly, at the time of accident the claimant was a driver in KSRTC Bus, due to the injury suffered in accident he is unable to discharge his day today work.
Secondly, due to the accident claimant has suffered grievous injuries and he was inpatient for a period of 5 days. He has suffered lot of pain during the treatment and he has to suffer with the disability and unhappiness throughout his life. Therefore, the Tribunal considering the evidence of the parties, has awarded just and reasonable compensation. Hence, the learned counsel for the claimant prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 20
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has suffered injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 20.06.2010 due to contributory negligence on the part of driver of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-05/D-1436 and driver of KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-42/F-191. Due to the accident the claimant has suffered blunt injury to abdominal trauma with mesenteric.
Even though the claimant has claimed that he was employed as a driver in KSRTC Bus and was earning Rs.11,000/- per month, but he has not produced any documents to establish the same. Due to the accident, he has suffered above injuries, he was inpatient for a period of 8 days, but he has not examined the treated doctor to show that due to disability the claimant has suffered loss of income. Taking into consideration the evidence of claimant and wound certificate, Ex.P18, I am of the opinion that, 21 total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company in MFA No.50/2013 is dismissed.
************ IN MFA.52/2013 C/W.4501/2013 arising out of MVC.4902/2010:
10. Sri. D.S.Sridhar, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant has claimed that he was earning Rs.9,000/- per month, but he has not produced any documents to establish the same. The Tribunal is not justified in taking monthly income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/-, which is on the higher side.
Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature, the whole body disability 22 assessed by the doctor at 17% is on the higher side. The Tribunal is not justified in granting compensation under the head of 'loss of income due to disability'.
Thirdly, the claimant was inpatient for a period of 6 days, the fractures are reunited. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' and 'loss of amenities' are on the higher side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and dismissing the appeal filed by the claimant.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following counter- contentions:
Firstly, at the time of accident the claimant was earning Rs.9,000/- per month by doing mason work. The Tribunal is not justified in taking monthly income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/-. Due to the accident he 23 is unable to do his day today work and there is loss of income due to disability.
Secondly, due to the accident claimant has suffered grievous injuries and he was inpatient for a period of 6 days. He has examined the doctor, who has assessed whole body disability at 17%. He has suffered lot of pain during the treatment and he has to suffer with the disability and unhappiness throughout his life. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities' and 'conveyance' are on the lower side.
Thirdly, even though the doctor has assessed whole body disability at 17%, but the Tribunal has considered only 13%, the same is contrary to the materials available on record. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal filed by the claimant and dismissing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. 24
12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
13. In respect of liability is concerned:
It is not in dispute that the claimant has suffered injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 20.06.2010 due to contributory negligence on the part of driver of Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-05/D-1436 and KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA42/F-191 by its driver. The corporation has not challenged the same. Due to the accident the claimant has suffered injuries as mentioned in Ex.P6.
Even though the claimant has claimed that he was earning Rs.9,000/- per month, but he has not produced any documents to establish the same. Under this circumstance, the notional income has to be assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since the accident has taken place in the year 2010, the 25 notional income has been fixed at Rs.5,500/- per month. Accordingly, the monthly income of the claimant is considered as Rs.5,500/-. Due to the accident the claimant has suffered grievous injuries as per Ex.P6. The claimant has examined the doctor, who has assessed disability at 17% to the whole body. Taking into consideration the evidence of the parties, the Tribunal has rightly assessed whole body disability at 13%.
At the time of accident, claimant was aged about 52 years and multiplier applicable to his age group is '11'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.94,380/- (Rs.5,500*12*11*13%) on account of 'loss of future income'.
Since the monthly income of the claimant is enhanced to Rs.5,500/-, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.16,500/- (Rs.5,500*3 months) under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'. 26
Due to the accident the claimant has suffered injuries as per Ex.P6. He has examined the doctor, who has assessed disability at 17% to the whole body. He was inpatient for a period of 8 days, he has suffered lot of pain during the treatment and he has to suffer with the disability and unhappiness throughout his life. Taking into consideration the evidence of the doctor and evidence of the claimant, I am inclined to enhance the sum awarded under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.
Due to the accident the claimant has suffered grievous injuries, the doctor has assessed disability at 17% to the whole body and has deposed that the claimant may be require another Rs.50,000/- for further surgery. Taking into consideration the evidence of the doctor and evidence of the claimant, compensation awarded under the head of 'future 27 medical expenses' has to be enhanced from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.
14. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.
15. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:
As awarded As awarded Compensation under by the by this different Heads Tribunal Court (Rs.) (Rs.) Pain and suffering 50,000 50,000 Medical, attendant, 1,05,000 1,05,000 conveyance & nourishment charges Loss of income during 15,000 16,500 laid up period Loss of future earnings 85,800 94,380 due to disability Future medical expenses 30,000 50,000 Loss of amenities 25,000 50,000 Total 3,10,800 3,65,880 The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,65,880/-.
28
The insurers of both vehicles i.e., Lorry and KSRTC Bus are directed to deposit the compensation amount at the ratio of 70% and 30% respectively along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, excluding interest for the compensation awarded under the head of 'future medical expenses'.
Since both the insurers were satisfied with the finding given by the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence, the same is upheld.
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, MFA Nos.52/2013 and 4501/2013 are disposed of.
******************* 29 IN MFA.49/2013 C/W.4499/2013 arising out of MVC.4903/2010:
16. Sri. D.S.Sridhar, the learned counsel for Insurance Company has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant has claimed that he was employed as Senior Officer at M/s. Jubliant Organisation Ltd., Nanjangudu and was drawing salary of Rs.30,000/- per month, but he has not produced any documents to establish the same Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature and he was inpatient for a period of 6 days, but he has not examined the treated doctor to prove that due to disability the claimant has suffered loss of income due to disability. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of income due to disability' is not based on the 30 materials available on record and there is no loss of income due to disability.
Thirdly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on other heads are on the higher side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and dismissing the appeal filed by the claimant.
17. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following counter- contentions:
Firstly, at the time of accident the claimant was aged about 35 years and was employed as Senior Officer at M/s. Jubliant Organization Ltd., Nanjangudu and was drawing salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. Due to the accident the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and he was inpatient for a period of 7 days. He has suffered lot of pain during the treatment and he has to suffer with the disability and unhappiness 31 throughout his life. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of income due to disability' is on the lower side.
Secondly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal filed by the claimant and dismissing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
18. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
19. It is not in dispute that the claimant has suffered injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 20.06.2010 due to contributory negligence on the part of drivers of Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-05/D-1436 and KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA42/F-191. The corporation has not challenged the same. 32
Even though the claimant has claimed that at the time of accident he was employed as Senior Officer at M/s. Jubliant Organisation Ltd., Nanjangudu and was drawing salary of Rs.25,000/- per month, he has produced only salary slip, but he has not produced any statement of bank account and he has not examined the author of the said document to prove the same.
Due to the accident the claimant has suffered injuries and he was inpatient for a period of 7 days, but he has not examined the treated doctor to show that due to disability the claimant has suffered loss of income. Taking into consideration the injuries suffered by the claimant and considering the evidence of the parties, the Tribunal has rightly granted just and reasonable compensation.
Accordingly, MFA Nos.49/2013 and 4499/2013 are dismissed.
33
************ IN MFA.51/2013 C/w. MFA.4500/2013 arising out of MVC.6200/2010:
20. Sri. D.S.Sridhar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant has claimed that he was a conductor and drawing salary of Rs.7,610/- per month, but he has not produced any documents to establish the same. Due to the accident he has not suffered any loss of income due to disability and he has continued his work. Therefore, he is not entitled to the compensation under the head of 'loss of income due to disability'.
Secondly, the claimant was inpatient for a period of 9 days. The injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. The compensation awarded under the other heads are on the higher side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance 34 Company and dismissing the appeal filed by the claimant.
21. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following counter- contentions:
Firstly, at the time of accident the claimant was a conductor in KSRTC Bus and was drawing salary of Rs.7,610/- per month and in view of the change of nature of work, he is drawing salary of Rs.6,500/- per month. Therefore, now the claimant is getting comparatively lesser salary. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads are on the lower side.
Secondly, the claimant has suffered two grievous injuries and he was inpatient for a period of 9 days. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal filed by the claimant and dismissing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
35
22. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
23. It is not in dispute that the claimant has suffered injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 20.06.2010 due to contributory negligence on the part of drivers of Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-05/D-1436 and KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA42/F-191. The corporation has not challenged the same.
The claimant has claimed that at the time of accident he was working as conductor in KSRTC Bus and was drawing salary of Rs.7,610/- per month and due to disability there is change of nature of work, in view of the change of nature of work, he is drawing salary of Rs.6,500/- per month and thereby, he is getting comparatively lesser salary. The claimant has not examined the doctor who treated him to prove the same. Therefore, considering the materials available on record and nature of injuries suffered by the 36 claimant, the Tribunal has rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation under the head of loss of income due to disability. The claimant was inpatient for a period of 9 days. Taking into consideration the age and avocation of the claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the other heads are just and reasonable.
Accordingly, MFA Nos.52/2013 and 4501/2013 are disposed of. MFA Nos.49/2013, 4499/2013, 50/2013, 52/2013 and 4501/2013 are dismissed.
The amount in deposit in MFA Nos.49/2013, 50/2013, 51/2013 and 52/2013 before this Court shall be transferred to the claims Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mkm/-