1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.7980 OF 2013(MV)
BETWEEN:
GOVINDEGOWDA @ GOVINDA
S/O LATE MANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/O YAREHALLY VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI
HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT-573201.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADV. )
AND
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER
RELIANCE INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, KRUTHIKA ARCADE
N.R.CIRCLE, H.N.PURA ROAD
HASSAN-573201.
2. K.H. PARAMESHWARA
AGED BOUT 35 YEARS
JAI HANUMAN NILAYA
INDIRA NAGAR,
SATHYAMANGALA LAYOUT
ARASIKERE ROAD
2
HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT-573201.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.S.LINGARAJ, ADV. FOR R1:
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED:12.2.2014.)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED: 18.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1457/2012
ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACK COURT-1, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSTION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
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 18.04.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 13.06.2012 at about 11.40 a.m., the claimant was proceeding by walk on the left side of the road, opposite to picture of palace, Sanman Hotel road, Hassan, at that time, lorry bearing registration No.KA-13/A-9565 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from hind portion, dashed against 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 he was aged about 30 years, was an agriculturist and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. It was pleaded that he also 4 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, respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was further pleaded that there is no permit to ply on the road. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
The respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-parte.
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 Dr.Ullasa Shetty as PW-2 and 5 got exhibited 9 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. In the meanwhile, 3 documents were got marked through Court Commissioner as Exs.C1 to 3. On behalf of the respondents, neither examined any witness nor marked any documents. 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, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,84,000./- 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 has raised the following contentions. 6
Firstly, at the time of accident the claimant was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, the Tribunal is not justified in taking monthly income of the claimant as Rs.4,000/-.
Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor, who has assessed 30% disability to the right lower limb, the Tribunal has wrongly assessed whole body disability at 7%. Due to the accident the claimant has suffered injuries and he has taken treatment as inpatient. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to suffer with the disability and unhappiness throughout his life. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' is on the lower side. The Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the head of 'loss of amenities'.
Secondly, claimant has produced medical bills to the extent of Rs.1,68,165/-, the Tribunal has granted 7 only Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of 'medical expenses', which is on the lower side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following contentions.
Firstly, even though the doctor has assessed disability at 30% to right lower limb, it is only in respect to the particular limb. The whole body disability assessed by the Tribunal at 7% is just and reasonable.
Secondly, even though the claimant has claimed that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but he has not produced any documents to establish the same. The Tribunal has rightly taken Rs.4,000/- per month as notional income.
Thirdly, even though claimant has produced medical bills to the extent of Rs.1,68,165/-, but 8 according to medical certificate, he has sustained only one crush to his right foot. Taking into consideration disability, the Tribunal has rightly granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of 'medical expenses'. The overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that claimant has suffered injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 13.06.2012 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. Due to accident claimant has suffered crush injury.
He has examined Dr.Ullasa Shetty as PW.2. In his testimony, he has deposed that claimant has 9 suffered 30% to the right lower limb. Taking into consideration the evidence of doctor and considering age and avocation of claimant and wound certificate- Ex.P7, I am of the opinion that whole body disability can be assessed at 10%.
At the time of accident, claimant was earning Rs.10,000/- by doing coolie work, but he has not produced any documents to establish the same. Under these circumstances, the notional income has to be assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since the accident has taken place in the year 2012, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.7,000/- p.m. At the time of accident, claimant was aged about 30 years and multiplier applicable to the said age group is 17. Thus, claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,42,800/- (Rs.7,000* 12*17* 10%) on account of 'loss of future income'. 10
Since the monthly income has been enhanced, claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.7,000/- instead of Rs.5,000/- under the head of 'loss of income during laid up period'.
Due to accident claimant has suffered lot of pain during treatment. He has examined doctor, who has assessed disability at 30% to the right lower limb and he has to suffer with the disability and unhappiness throughout his life. Taking into consideration the evidence of doctor and wound certificate-Ex.P7, I am of the opinion that the sum awarded under the head of 'pain and sufferings' has to be enhanced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. The claimant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of 'loss of amenities'.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable. 11
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 15,000 25,000 Medical expenses 1,00,000 1,00,000 Attendant charges 5,000 5,000 Nutritious food 5,000 5,000 Loss of income during 5,000 7,000 laid up period Loss of amenities - 30,000 Loss of future income 54,000 1,42,800 Total 1,84,000 3,14,800 The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,14,800/-.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization 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.
12Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mkm/-