1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.7894 OF 2013(MV)
BETWEEN:
MR. PRASHANTHA @ PRASANTHA TALAVAR
S/O BASAVANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT HULAGADDIPOORNA VILLAGE
HANGAL TALUK
HAVERI DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.BABU.M., ADV. )
AND
1. MR. YOGESH
S/O SHIVMADAIAH
MAJOR IN AGE
R/AT NO.478/1, B.H.ROAD
JAYANAGARA
NELAMANGALA TOWN
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
VP-IV, 1ST CROSS
POLICE STATION ROAD
2
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
BANGALORE-560 058.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADV. R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED: 22.06.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.2837/2012
ON THE FILE OF THE 14TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND
MACT COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.6.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 22.3.2012, the claimant was 3 proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-02-EL-6820 as a pillion rider near Adakamaranahalli Bus stop, Dasanapura Hobli, at that time, the rider of the motorcycle rode the same at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, lost control and dashed to the pedestrian and caused accident. 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 he was working as packaging helper and was earning Rs.5,500/- p.m. It was pleaded that he also spent huge amount 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
4. On service of notice, 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 and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the rider. The involvement of the vehicle is disputed. The rider of the motorcycle had no valid driving licence. 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.1 did not chose to file written statement.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and Mr.Marishantha Veeraswamy 5 as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. On behalf of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document was produced. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.85,000/- 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 the claimant has sustained head injury with left supra orbital ridge fracture with underlying EDH, SDH and penumocephalus and it is grievous in nature. The claimant was aged 22 years at the time of 6 the accident. He was working as packaging helper and earning Rs.5,500/- per month. Due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 3 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He 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 the injuries sustained by the claimant are minor in nature. He has not examined the doctor regarding disability suffered by him. Therefore, considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable compensation and it does not call for 7 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 claims that he was working as packaging helper and was earning Rs.5,500/- p.m. The claimant has not produced any evidence with regard to his income. Considering the evidence of the claimant, the income has to be taken at Rs.5,500/- p.m.
As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained head injury with left supra orbital ridge fracture with underlying EDH, SDH and penumocephalus and it is grievous in nature. The 8 claimant has not examined the doctor to assess disability suffered by him. Hence, he is not entitled for compensation under the head 'loss of future income'. However, due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to suffer with the disability stated by the doctor throughout his life. He was treated as inpatient for more than 3 days in the hospital and thereafter, has received further treatment. Considering the same, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.40,000/-, under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and further a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head of 'food, nourishment and attendant charges'.
9
As per wound certificate, the nature of injuries suggest that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 4 months and therefore, a sum of Rs.22,000/- (Rs.5,500x4 months) is awarded under the head of 'loss of income during laid-up period' as against Rs.10,000/-.
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 25,000 40,000 Medical and incidental 40,000 40,000 expenses Food, nourishment, 0 10,000 conveyance and attendant charges Loss of income during 10,000 22,000 laid up period Loss of amenities 10,000 40,000 Total 85,000 152,000 10 The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,52,000/-.
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 receipt of copy of this judgment .
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
JUDGE DM