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.8882 OF 2012(MV)
BETWEEN:
Shivanna S/o Chikkanna,
Aged about 41 years,
Agriculturist,
Resident of Katihally Village,
Hosadurga Taluk,
Chitradurga District.
... Appellant
(By Sri.N.K.Siddeshwara, Advocate)
AND:
1. Rajanna S/o Gangamallappa,
Major,
Resident of Mahalakshmi Extension,
Chikkanayakanahalli Town & Taluk,
Tumkur District.
2. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Maganur Complex, 2nd Floor,
Near APMC Road, B.D.Road,
Chitradurga City,
Represented by its Branch Manager.
... Respondents
(By Sri.D.Vijaya Kumar, Advocate for R2:
R1 served and unrepresented )
2
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:01.06.2012 passed
in MVC No.143/2011 on the file of itinerary Senior Civil
Judge & MACT, Hosadurga, dismissing the claim petition
for compensation.
This MFA, coming on for hearing, 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 01.06.2012 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Hosadurga in MVC No.143/2011.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.01.2011 at about 12.30 p.m. the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-16/L-4547. When he reached near Katihatti cross, the driver of the bus bearing registration No.KA-06/A-9159 came at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle 3 and caused accident. As a result, he sustained injuries and immediately he was shifted to the hospital.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that he was doing agriculture work and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. 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. On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed separate written statements in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded by respondent No.1 that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2.
4
It was pleaded by respondent No.2 that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the claimant himself. It was further pleaded that the liability, if any, is depending on the validity of RC, FC and permit of the bus and DL of the driver. 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, they 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 himself was examined as PW-1, Dr.Suma, Dentist as PW-2 and Dr.S.M.Sridhar as PW-3 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P99 and Ex.C1. On the other hand, the respondents have not examined any witnesses but got marked one document as Ex.R1. After appreciation of 5 the evidence, the Tribunal held that the injuries suffered are due to the claimant's own rash and negligent act in riding the motorcycle and dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved, the claimant has filed this appeal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, but the Tribunal has wrongly given a finding that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the claimant.
Secondly, the claimant was riding the motorcycle on the left side of the road after following the traffic rules, the bus came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant, as a result of which the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. But the Tribunal has given a wrong finding that the rider of the motorcycle negligently hit 6 the hind portion of the bus. This finding is contrary to the materials available on record.
Thirdly, at the time of the accident the claimant was doing agriculture work and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and due to the injuries he was unable to do the work. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal and seeking compensation.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter-contentions:
Firstly, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle, without following the traffic rules he hit the bus from back side and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of the parties has rightly held that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle.
7
Secondly, even though the claimant claims that he was an agriculturist and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, he has not produced any document to establish the same.
Thirdly, the Tribunal after considering the materials available on record has rightly dismissed the claim petition. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the original records, judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
9. It is the case of the claimant that on 24.01.2011 he was proceeding on his motorcycle. When he reached near Katihatti cross, the driver of the bus came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant and the claimant fell down and sustained injuries. To establish 8 his claim he examined himself as PW-1. Immediately after the accident the police have registered FIR as per Ex.P2. On going through the evidence of the parties and by verifying the IMV report and the damages caused to the vehicles, it is clear that the bus was moving ahead of the motorcycle, the driver of the bus, without giving any signal immediately stopped the bus, due to which the rider of the motorcycle hit backside of the bus and the accident occurred. It is clear that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus.
Re.quantum:
10. Even though the claimant has claimed that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing agriculture he has not produced any material to establish the same. Therefore, the notional income has to be assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since the 9 accident has taken place in the year 2011, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.6,500/- p.m. Taking into consideration the injuries suffered by the claimant and the wound certificate at Ex.P4, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering.
Considering the deposition of the doctor and the disability certificates at Exs.P88 and P89, the claimant is entitled for Rs.20,000/- under the head 'disability and injury'.
Since the claimant was inpatient for a period of 20 days the claimant is entitled for Rs.10,000/- under the head 'food and nourishment, etc.', Rs.10,000/- under the head 'medical expenses' and Rs.10,000/- under the head 'loss of income during the laid up period'.
10
The claimant has to suffer the disability and unhappiness throughout his life. Hence, he is entitled to Rs.15,000/- under the head 'loss of amenities'.
11. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:
(Rs.) Compensation under different Heads Pain and sufferings 25,000 Medical expenses 10,000 Food & nourishment 10,000 etc.
Loss of income during 10,000
laid up period
Loss of amenities 15,000
Disability and injury 20,000
Total 90,000
The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.90,000/-. 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 11 period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified 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 Cm/-