Karnataka High Court
Sri Manjunatha R vs Sri Sathish Babu S R on 29 July, 2024
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29681
MFA No. 2673 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2673 OF 2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI MANJUNATHA R
S/O RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/O GOWRIPURA VILLAGE
CHITRADURGA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-577501
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. V RAJANI, ADVCOATE FOR
SRI. B PRAMOD., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI SATHISH BABU S R
S/O RUDRAMUNIYAPPA
MAJOR,
R/O OPP.KPTCL, CHITRADURGA ROAD
Digitally signed by CHALLAKERE TOWN-577522.
HEMALATHA A
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, HOUSER MAIN ROAD,
MADIVAL, BENGALURU-560068.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2:
SRI. M S CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.12.2017
PASSED IN MVC NO.569/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE IST
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-IV,
CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29681
MFA No. 2673 of 2018
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.12.2017 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-IV, Chitradurga (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MVC No.569/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 10.04.2017 at 1.30 p.m., when the claimant was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/ED-9585 from Challakere to Hiriyur Town, at that time, a car bearing registration No.KA-16/M- 6686 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the -3- NC: 2024:KHC:29681 MFA No. 2673 of 2018 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, seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent significant amount towards medical expenses, conveyance charges and other related costs. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
4. Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statements denying the averments made in the claim petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The claimant, in order to prove the case, examined himself as PW-1, and Dr.Dinesh was examined as PW-2, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined but got exhibited document namely Ex.R1. The -4- NC: 2024:KHC:29681 MFA No. 2673 of 2018 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.3,07,110/- 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, the present appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant has submitted as follows:
a) Firstly, the Tribunal erred in assuming the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.7,000/-, despite evidence showing he earned Rs.20,000/- per month by working as a driver and carrying out agriculture.
b) Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 10 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular -5- NC: 2024:KHC:29681 MFA No. 2673 of 2018 work. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment.
Considering the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side and the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head 'loss of income during laid-up period'.
With the above submissions, learned counsel for the appellant sought to allow the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company raised the following counter- contentions:
a) Firstly, the assertion of claimant that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, remains unsubstantiated due to lack of documentary evidence. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant notionally.
b) Secondly, the Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and evidence of the doctor, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 13%. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:29681 MFA No. 2673 of 2018
c) Thirdly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature and he was inpatient only for 10 days and there is no functional disability. The Tribunal has erred in considering the addition of future prospects.
d) Fourthly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are just and reasonable and it does not warrant interference.
With the above submissions, learned counsel for the Insurance Company sought to dismiss the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 10.04.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:29681 MFA No. 2673 of 2018
10. The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. But he has not produced any documents to substantiate his claim. Therefore, in the absence of proof of income, notional income has to be assessed. According to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year 2017, notional income shall be taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m.
11. As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained fracture of both bones of right leg and other injuries. Taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at 13%. There is no functional disability. But, the Tribunal erred in considering addition of future prospects. The claimant was aged about 33 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '16'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,74,560/- (Rs.11,000*12*16*13%) on account of 'loss of future income'.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:29681 MFA No. 2673 of 2018
12. The nature of injuries indicates that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of three months. Consequently, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.33,000/- (Rs.11,000*3 months) under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.
13. The claimant was hospitalized as an inpatient for more than 10 days in the hospital and subsequently received further treatment. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. Considering the prolonged pain during treatment as well as the permanent disability certified by the doctor, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.
14. Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:29681 MFA No. 2673 of 2018
15. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:
As awarded As awarded
by the by this
Compensation under
Tribunal Court
different Heads
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings 6,000 40,000
Medical expenses 16,502 16,502
Food, nourishment, 10,000 10,000
conveyance and
attendant charges
Loss of income during 0 33,000
laid up period
Loss of amenities 30,000 40,000
Loss of future income 244,608 274,560
Total 3,07,110 4,14,062
16. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29681 MFA No. 2673 of 2018
c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,14,062/- in place of Rs.3,07,110/- awarded by the Tribunal.
d) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13