Karnataka High Court
Ramachandrappa @ Ramesh vs Marulasiddeshwara on 29 July, 2024
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29811
MFA No. 8243 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. 8243 OF 2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
RAMACHANDRAPPA @ RAMESH
S/O KENCHAPPA
COOLIE, R/O KOTEHAL VILLAGE
HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA .,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MARULASIDDESHWARA
S/O R.M.JAYAPPA, AGE MAJOR,
R/O PRARTHANA NILAYA
4TH CROSS, MALLESHWARA NAGARA
GUNDAPPA SHED, SHIVAMOGA CITY-577 201.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD.,
Digitally signed by
HEMALATHA A MMK COMPLEX, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD
Location: HIGH DAVANAGERE-577 001.
COURT OF ...RESPONDENTS
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI.RAVISH BENNI., ADVOCATE FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DATED: 23.12.2019)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:23.06.2018
PASSED IN MVC NO.1279/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, MACT, HOLALKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29811
MFA No. 8243 of 2018
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 23.06.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Holalkere in MVC No.1279/2016.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 09.03.2016 at about 04.15 p.m., when the claimant was walking near Anjaneyaswamy temple for his domestic purpose by observing traffic rules, at that time, the claimant reaches at NH-13, in front of Anjaneyaswamy Temple, near Janakonda Village at Chitradurga Taluk, then the driver of the Shiva Stage Carriage Bus bearing Registration No.KA-14/B-1678 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules and regulations, dashed to the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized. -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29811 MFA No. 8243 of 2018
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 No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No.1, despite service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal 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, in order to prove the case, examined himself as PW-1, Dr.Ramesh Kotiyan was examined as PW-2 and Dr.M.V.Sathyanarayana was examined as PW-3, and got exhibited documents namely -4- NC: 2024:KHC:29811 MFA No. 8243 of 2018 Ex.P1 to Ex.P30. On behalf of the respondents, one witness i.e. Dr.Prakash was examined as RW-1 and no document was exhibited. 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.2,95,262/- 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 raised the following contentions:
a) Firstly, the Tribunal erred in assuming the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.6,000/-, despite evidence showing he earned Rs.20,000/- per month by working as a Coolie.-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:29811 MFA No. 8243 of 2018
b) Secondly, the claimant has examined Dr.M.V.Sathyanarayana as PW-3. He deposed that the claimant suffered 30% psychological disability and 30% to physical disability. But the Tribunal has taken the whole body disability at 10%, which is on the lower side. Due to psychological disability and physical disability, the claimant was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Therefore, he is entitled for addition of future prospects. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in MFA Nos.103807/2016 and connected matter disposed of on 27.05.2022.
c) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 37 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 awarded by the -6- NC: 2024:KHC:29811 MFA No. 8243 of 2018 Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side.
With the above contentions, learned counsel for the appellant sought to allow the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has 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, immediately after the accident, the claimant was admitted to the Government Hospital, Chitradurga. The Wound Certificate (Ex.P7) issued by the Government Hospital clearly indicates that the claimant's injuries were minor. Even the CT scan conducted by the -7- NC: 2024:KHC:29811 MFA No. 8243 of 2018 Hospital showed normal results. Respondent No.2's witness, Dr. Prakash (RW-1), testified that the claimant's injuries were minor and that he had recovered from the head injury, with no lasting effects. In light of the medical records, discharge summary and the evidence of RW-1, it is evident that the claimant's injuries were indeed minor.
Accordingly, the Tribunal's assessment of 10% whole body disability is justified.
c) Thirdly, 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 contentions, learned counsel for the Insurance Company sought to dismiss the appeal. -8-
NC: 2024:KHC:29811 MFA No. 8243 of 2018
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal and original records
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 09.03.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
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 2016, notional income shall be taken at Rs.9,500/- p.m.
11. As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained closed head injury with acute SHD on left side, complete tear of ACL and PCL, Complex tear with avulsion of medial -9- NC: 2024:KHC:29811 MFA No. 8243 of 2018 meniscus complex and other injuries. The doctor (PW-2) in his evidence has deposed about the injuries suffered by the claimant but he has not assessed any physical disability. The doctor (PW-3) in his evidence has stated that the claimant undergone surgery i.e. fracture of closer head injury with acute with SDH on left side and further petitioner was sustained infection and admitted the hospital and developed seizure (Fits). Due to the head injury, the claimant suffered 30% psychological disability and 30% to physical disability. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctors and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, CT scan report and discharge summary, I am of the opinion that the whole body disability is assessed at 30%.
12. At the time of the accident, the claimant was working as Coolie. Due to the head injury, the claimant suffered 30% psychological disability and 30% to physical disability. Therefore, the claimant is unable to do his day to day work and it affects his working capacity, which
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29811 MFA No. 8243 of 2018 results in reduction of his income. Therefore, considering the evidence of PW-3, injuries suffered by the claimant, age and avocation of the claimant and in view of the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in MFA Nos.103807/2016 and connected matter disposed of on 27.05.2022, the claimant is also entitled for future prospects. Since the claimant was aged about 40 years, 40% has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.13,300/-. The claimant is aged about 40 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '15'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.7,18,200/-
(Rs.13,330*12*15*30%) on account of 'loss of future income'.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29811 MFA No. 8243 of 2018
13. The nature of injuries indicates that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 2 months. Consequently, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.19,000/- (Rs.9,500*2 months) under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.
14. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He was hospitalized as an inpatient for more than 37 days in the hospital. 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.25,000/- to Rs.35,000/- and under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/-.
15. Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29811 MFA No. 8243 of 2018
16. 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 25,000 35,000
Medical expenses 1,17,262 1,17,262
Food, nourishment, 15,000 15,000
conveyance and
attendant charges
Loss of income during 10,000 19,000
laid up period
Loss of amenities 10,000 20,000
Loss of future income 1,08,000 7,18,200
Future medical expenses 10,000 10,000
Total 2,95,262 9,34,462
17. 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.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29811 MFA No. 8243 of 2018
c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.9,34,462/-.
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 copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 90