1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
M.F.A.No.6588 OF 2010(MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI. R. MANOHAR BABU,
S/O LATE. RAMACHANDRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/A NO.1499, 26TH A MAIN,
26TH CROSS, H.S.R. LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-34.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. T.V.SATISH, ADV.)
AND:
1. KHIZAR AHMED N.,
NO.16, 1ST MAIN SARJAPUR,
AGARA MAIN ROAD,
JAKKASANDRA EXTN.,
KORAMANGALA, 1ST BLOCK, BANGALORE-34.
2. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
NO.16, BEELANDUR, SARJAPUR,
MARATH HALLI, OUTER RING ROAD,
BANGALORE-37.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.MALLIKARJUNAPPA, ADV. FOR R1:
SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADV. FOR R2)
2
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER 173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.10.2009
PASSED IN MVC NO.8855/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE IX
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER MACT, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THIS COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the judgment and award dated 03.10.2009 passed by the MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-7) in MVC No.8855/2007.
2. Brief facts of the case:
On 24.09.2007 at about 3.00 p.m., when the claimant was proceeding as pedestrian in front of his house bearing No.1499, 26th 'A' Main, 26th Cross, Sector- II, H.S.R Layout, Bangalore, at that time, all of a sudden the maruthi car bearing Registration No.KA.01/MB-4277 being driven by its driver came at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the claimant. As a 3 result, he sustained injuries and immediately he was shifted to the hospital. After recovering from the injuries, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal.
3. On service of notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and respondent No.2 only filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was further pleaded that the accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and it was due to negligent act of the claimant himself. It was further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. The age, occupation and income of the claimant 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.
4. In order to prove his case, the claimant has examined himself as PW-1, and Dr.Sunilkumar K.S. as PW- 2 and got marked 16 documents. On the other hand, the 4 Insurance Company neither examined any witness nor marked any documents on their behalf. After appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.61,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. and directed the insurance company to pay the compensation. Being not satisfied with the same, this appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions.
Firstly, at the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 32 years and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Due to the accident, he has suffered grievous injuries. He has examined the doctor as PW.2, who has assessed 20% disability to the limb and whole body disability at 7%. The Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation under the head of 'loss of future income due to disability'.
Secondly, he has contended that due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and he was 5 inpatient for a period of 3 days. 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 'pain and agony' and 'loss of amenities' are on the lower side. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Insurance Company has raised the following contentions.
Firstly, even though the doctor has assessed whole body disability at 7% the claimant in his evidence has admitted that he has continued his work and therefore, there is no loss of income. He was inpatient only for 3 days. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly not granted any compensation under the above said head.
Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature.
Thirdly, even though the claimant has claimed that he was earning Rs.8,000/- per month, but he has not 6 produced any documents to establish the same. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on all other heads are just and reasonable. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the claims Tribunal and original records.
8. It is not in dispute that the claimant has suffered injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 24.09.2007 due to the rash and negligent driving of the maruthi car bearing registration No.KA-01/MB-4277. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered the following injuries.
1. Fracture base of left 5th metatarsal,
2. Lacerated wound over left foot and
3. Severe injuries to hands and head.
The claimant has examined Dr.Sunilkumar as PW.2. In his testimony, PW.2 has deposed that the claimant has sustained disability at 20% to the limb and whole body disability at 7%. The claimant in his evidence, has 7 deposed that due to the disability there is future loss of income. Therefore, taking into consideration the depositions of the doctor, PW-2 and claimant, PW.1 and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate-Ex.P8, the whole body disability is taken at 7%. The claimant is aged about 32 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '16'.
9. Even though the claimant has claimed that he was earning Rs.8,000/- per month, but he has not produced any documents to establish the same. To assess the notional income, as per the circular issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident of the year 2007, the income should be taken notionally as Rs.4,000/- per month. Accordingly, monthly income of the claimant is considered as Rs.4,000/- per month. Accordingly, loss of future earnings is calculated as follows:
Rs.4,000 x 12 x 16 x 7/100 = Rs.53,760/-. 8 Since the income of the claimant is enhanced to Rs.4,000/- per month, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.8,000/- (Rs.4,000*2 months) under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.
10. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered above said injuries. He has examined the doctor as PW.2, who has assessed disability at 20% to the limb and whole body disability at 7%. He has suffered lot of pain during the treatment and he has to suffer with the disability throughout his life. Taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor, I am inclined to enhance the compensation for 'loss of amenities' from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/-.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads are just and reasonable.
11. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:
9
As awarded As awarded
Compensation under by the by this
different Categories Tribunal Court
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Pain and agony 20,000 20,000
Medical expenses 20,000 20,000
Loss of future earnings - 53,760
due to disability
Loss of earning during laid 6,000 8,000
up period
Loss of amenities and 10,000 20,000
future unhappiness
Conveyance & 5,000 5,000
nourishment expenses
Total 61,000 1,26,760
The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,26,760/-.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount, along with an interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.
10
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mkm/-