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.1273 OF 2016(MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI.ABHISHEK BHONSLE
S/O ANAND RAO BHONSLE
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT NO.31, 8TH MAIN
9TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-41.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.M.H.PRAKASH, ADV. )
AND
1. RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO.LTD.,
NO.3, MANANDI PLAZA
ST MARKS ROAD, BANGALORE-01.
2. SRI. SUBRAMANYA K.R.
S/O RANGANNA K.,
NO.478, 40TH CROSS
5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-41.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.S.LINGARAJ, ADV. FOR R1:
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
2
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:30.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.6094/2012
ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE
JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 30.7.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 29.7.2012, the claimants along with others was proceeding in a swift car bearing registration No.KA-05-MH-4406 from Bangalore-Mysore Road near Thurahalli Forest Vajrahalli, Kengeri, at that time, the driver of the said 3 car drove the same at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the road side tree. 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 driver cum owner of driving school and was earning Rs.25,000/- 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 car by its driver.
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. The driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid 4 driving licence as on the date 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. The respondent No.1 appeared through counsel and 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 Dr.Ramachandra.S as PW-4 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P23. 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 driving of the car by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The 5 Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,85,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% 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 he was working as driver cum owner of driving school and was earning Rs.25,000/- p.m., but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.7,000/- per month.
Secondly, PW-4, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 10% to whole body. Due to the said disability, the claimant is not able to continue his regular work. There is loss of income due to disability. But the 6 Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the head of 'loss of future income'.
Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 4 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 even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, he has not produced any documents to establish his income. Therefore, the 7 Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.
Secondly, the injuries sustained by the claimant are minor in nature. The claimant has failed to establish that due to the disability suffered by him, he has discontinued doing car business. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly not granted any compensation under the head of 'loss of future income'.
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.
8
As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained right per implant fracture radius. PW-4, the doctor has stated that the claimant has suffered whole body disability at 10%. The claimant has failed to establish that due to the disability suffered by him, he has discontinued doing car business. There is no loss of income. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly not granted any compensation under the head of 'loss of future income'.
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. Considering the same, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.60,000/-. 9
The compensation awarded b y the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.
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 60,000 Medical expenses 100,000 100,000 Food, nourishment, 10,000 10,000 conveyance and attendant charges Loss of income during 15,000 15,000 laid up period Loss of amenities 20,000 40,000 Total 185,000 225,000 The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 8% p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of 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 DM