Sri Raghavendra vs Sri Ramakrishna B G

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 129 Kant
Judgement Date : 5 January, 2021

Karnataka High Court
Sri Raghavendra vs Sri Ramakrishna B G on 5 January, 2021
Author: Nataraj Rangaswamy
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                    BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

  MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3811 OF 2017


BETWEEN:

SRI. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O NAGAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/O KUDRE KEREBETTU,
MARKOODU,
KOTESHWARA GRAMA,
KUNDAPURA TALUK-576 201.
                                     .... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI RAMAKRISHNA B G
S/O GANAPATHI B.R.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/O MARKOODU,
KOTESHWARA GRAMA-576201
KUNDAPURA TLAUK

2 . THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
BRANCH OFFICE:KUNDAPURA,
SAI TOWERS MAIN ROAD,
KUNDAPURA
KUNDAPURA TALUK-576201
REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER       ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. A RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
v/O DATED 07.12.2017 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED
WITH).
                                    2




     THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED24.01.2017
PASSED IN MVC NO.837/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
MACT, UDUPI (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA) KUNDAPURA,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:


                       JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Kundapur, (henceforth referred as Tribunal) in terms of judgment and award dated 24.01.2017 in MVC No.837/2014.

2. The claim petition discloses that on 23.08.2014 at about 6:30 p.m the claimant was sitting on a foot path of the service road of NH-66. At that time, a car bearing No.KA-15-M-2890 (henceforth referred to as offending car) being driven 3 by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the claimant. As a result, the claimant suffered grievous injuries to his left leg and he was shifted to Vivek Hospital, Kundapur, where he was treated as inpatient. The claimant contended that he was an inpatient between 23.08.2014 till 29.08.2014. He contended that he was vending clarified butter and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month and as a result of accident he was deprived of his ability to earn his livelihood. The claimant alleged that the driver of the car was negligent and therefore he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act, claiming compensation of Rs.11,25,000/- from the owner and insurer of the car.

3. The insurer contested the claim petition and denied the averments of the claim petition as well as the accident and injuries sustained by the claimant. It contended that the driver of the car did not possess a valid license and fitness certificate. 4

4. Based on the above, the claim petition was set down for trial. The claimant was examined as PW-1 and the Doctor who treated him was examined as PW-2 and they marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12, while the insurer marked the insurance policy of the offending car in question as Ex.R1.

5. The Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligence driving by the driver of the offending car in question and this finding of the Tribunal is not challenged by the insurer.

6. Insofar as the quantum, of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal noticed that the claimant was 32 years and did not have any proof of avocation and income from his avocation. Hence, the Tribunal considered the notional income of the claimant as Rs.7,000/- per month. It is noticed from the evidence of the PW-2 that the claimant had suffered the following injuries:

5

1. fracture of left tibia and fubulla
2. fracture of neck of proximal phalangus of left thumb.

7. It is noticed the evidence of PW-2 that the claimant had suffered disability of the left limb to an extent of 20%. Hence, the Tribunal considered the disability to whole body at 10% and awarded the following compensation:

         Heads under which                 Amount in
       compensation awarded                 Rupees
Pain & suffering                            Rs.35,000/-
Loss of income during the                   Rs.15,000/-
period of treatment
Medical expenses                            Rs.68,500/-
Future loss of income                     Rs.1,34,400/-
Towards disability,                         Rs.10,000/-
deprivation of future
amenities and happiness of
life.
Attendant charges,                              Rs.5,000/-
conveyance and nourished
food charges and other
expenses
Future medical expenses for                 Rs.10,000/-
removal of implants
               Total                    Rs.2,77,900/-
                           6




     8.    Being   aggrieved    by   the   quantum   of

compensation and terming it inadequate, the claimant has filed this appeal and contends that the Tribunal had ought to have considered the notional income of the claimant as Rs.8,500/- per month, as is done by this Court in the matters referred to Lok Adalat for settlement. He also contended that the Tribunal ought to have granted adequate compensation towards pain and suffering, having regard to the fact, the claimant had suffered three fractures.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurer contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under conventional heads is just and proper and does not call for interference by this Court. However, the learned counsel for the insurer did not dispute the fact that this Court has considered the notional income of persons who die or are injured 7 in road traffic accident in the year 2013 at a sum of Rs.8,500/- per month.

10. It is noticed that the claimant had suffered fracture of tibia and fubulla of the left leg and also fracture of the left thumb. The claimant states that he was vending clarified butter and therefore, his avocation involved moving from place to place and vending the commodity. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities deserves to be enhanced and in addition, the claimant is also entitled to loss of income during the treatment of three months and therefore on this ground, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-calculated as follows:-

                     Heads under                Amount in
  Sl.                   which                    Rupees
  No.               compensation
                      awarded
              Compensation
        1     towards pain and                   Rs.35,000/-
              suffering.
                                  8




            Loss of earning
            during laid up period
      2                                               Rs.25,500/-
            at Rs.8500/- per
            month for 3 months

      3     Medical expenses                          Rs.68,500/-

            Loss of income due to
      4                                           Rs.1,63,200/-
            disability

      5     Loss of amenities                         Rs.25,000/-

            Attendant charges,
            conveyance and
      6     nourished food                             Rs.5,000/-
            charges and other
            expenses

            Future medical
      7.                                              Rs.20,000/-
            expenses

                         Total                   Rs.3,42,200/-


11. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC.837/2014 is enhanced to a sum of Rs.3,42,200/-

12. The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.3,42,200/- payable by the insurer 9 along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.

13. The insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded by this Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE RKA