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. 6805 OF 2013(MV)
BETWEEN:
MISS. PARVATHI
D/O NARYANA POOJARY
AGED 25 YEARS
R/AT KUKKAJE HOUSE
KURIYALA VILLAGE
BANTWAL TALUK, D.K-574219.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.G.RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADV. )
AND
1. MR. P. RAGHURAM KARANTH
S/O KRISHNAYYA KARANTH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT DR. GANESH NILAYA
D.NO.3-143A, TENKA YEDAPADAVU
SHIBRIKERE, MANGALORE
D.K.-575006.
2
2. UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH: URVA MARKET
MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-575002
REPRESENTED BY ITS
BRANCH MANAGER
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV. R1:
SRI. H.N.KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADV. R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:18.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1149/2010
ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-3, D.K. MANGALORE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the claimant being 3 aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.4.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 28.5.2010, the claimant was standing on the extreme left side of the road at Sornadu Bandashale Panjikallu Village, Bantwal Taluk, at that time, Maruthi Wagon-R car bearing registration No.KA-19/MA-4823 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that she was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and she was doing beedi rolling work and was earning Rs.5,000/- p.m. It was pleaded that she also spent huge amount 4 towards medical expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
4. On service of notice, the respondent No.1 filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was pleaded that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the car and the claimant herself has contributed to the accident. The age, avocation and income of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
The respondent No.2 filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false 5 and frivolous in the eye of law. It was pleaded that the driver of the car was not having valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The age, avocation and income of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant herself was examined as PW-1 and two more witnesses were examined as PWs-2 and 3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined but got exhibited document namely Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, 6 as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,56,700/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that even though the claimant claims that she was doing beedi rolling work and earning Rs.5,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.3,000/- per month. Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 15% to left forearm. But the Tribunal has erred in taking the whole body disability at only 5%. Thirdly, the claimant has produced medical expenses amounting to Rs.46,000/-, but the Tribunal is not 7 justified in awarding compensation of Rs.23,225/-. Fourthly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. She was treated as inpatient for a period of 62 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, she was not in a position to discharge his regular work. She has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the same, the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other heads are on the lower side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that even though the claimant claims that she was doing beedi rolling work and earning Rs.5,000/- per month, she has not produced any documents to establish his income. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally. Secondly, PW- 8 2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 15% to left forearm. But the Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 5%. Thirdly, considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable compensation and it does not call for interference. Hence, he sought dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. It is not in dispute that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
The claimant has not produced any evidence with regard to her income. Therefore, considering the 9 age and avocation of the claimant, the notional income can be taken at Rs.5,000/- p.m. As per wound certificate, the claimant has suffered fracture of distal radius left wrist, fracture of neck of fibula and also fracture of nasal bone. PW-2, the doctor has stated that the claimant has suffered permanent disability at 15% to left forearm. The Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at 5%. The claimant was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to her age group is '18'. Thus, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.54,000/- (Rs.5,000*12*18*5%) on account of 'loss of future income'.
The nature of injuries sustained by the claimant suggests that she must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 5 months. The income of the claimant is enhanced to Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of 10 Rs.25,000/- (Rs.5,000*5 months) under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.
The claimant was treated as inpatient for more than 62 days in the hospital and thereafter, has received further treatment. Hence, we are inclined to enhance the sum awarded under the head of 'conveyance, nourishment and attendance charges' from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.
Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. She has suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to suffer with the disability stated by the doctor throughout his life. Considering the same, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. 11
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads remains unaltered.
10. 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 sufferings 40,000 50,000 Medical expenses 23,225 23,225 Food, nourishment, 30,000 40,000 conveyance and attendant charges Loss of income during 6,000 25,000 laid up period Loss of amenities 10,000 50,000 Loss of future income 32,400 54,000 Future medical expenses 15,000 15,000 Total 156,625 257,225 Rounded off 156,700 257,300 The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.257,300/-.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6% p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of 12 receipt of copy of this judgment excluding interest on the compensation awarded under the head 'future medical expenses'.
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
JUDGE DM