Karnataka High Court
Sri Channaraju @ Papanna vs The Managing Director on 30 July, 2024
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29963
MFA No. 2434 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2434 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI CHANNARAJU @ PAPANNA
S/O KUNNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.89
KAILANCHA, AVERAHALLI,
BENGALURU
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
K.S.R.T.C DEPOT,
Digitally signed by BENGALURU CENTRAL OFFICE,
HEMALATHA A
K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BANGALORE-560027
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.S.NIRMALA, ADVOCATE)
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06/09/2018, PASSED IN MVC
NO.5029/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU
(SCCH-15), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29963
MFA No. 2434 of 2019
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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 06.09.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MVC No.5029/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 22.04.2017 at about 10.30 a.m., when the claimant was proceeding by walk on Bengaluru - Mysore road near Ijoor Circle, KSRTC bus stop, at that time, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-09/F-5119 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized. -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29963 MFA No. 2434 of 2019
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 appeared through counsel and filed written statement 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.Shrihari was examined as PW-2, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. On behalf of the respondent, one witness was examined as RW-1 and no documents were got marked. 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, -4- NC: 2024:KHC:29963 MFA No. 2434 of 2019 as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Corporation to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant raised the following contentions:
a) Firstly, the Tribunal erred in assuming the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.8,000/- per month, despite claiming that he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, by working as a mason.
b) Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-2. The doctor has deposed that the claimant has higher mental function deficits and assessed the whole body disability at 54%. But the Tribunal erred in taking the whole body disability at 5%.
c) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for -5- NC: 2024:KHC:29963 MFA No. 2434 of 2019 a period of 7 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 Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side.
With the above submissions, learned counsel for the appellant sought to allow the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Corporation raised the following counter-contentions:
a) Firstly, the assertion of the claimant that he was earning Rs.30,000/- 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 5%. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:29963 MFA No. 2434 of 2019
c) Thirdly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature and he was inpatient for only 7 days. 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 and the original records.
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 22.04.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:29963 MFA No. 2434 of 2019
10. The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.30,000/- 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 left ear bleed, nasal bleed GLS was E2, M5, V3 with bilaterally equally reacting pupils. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered head injury, due to that he has lost memory and he has higher mental function deficits and physical disability to whole body was assessed at 54%. The claimant himself was examined as PW1. He has entered the witness box and he gave correct answers without any difficulty and without hesitation to the questions put by the insurance company advocate. Considering the evidence of PW2 and the medical records produced by the claimant, I am of the -8- NC: 2024:KHC:29963 MFA No. 2434 of 2019 opinion that the whole body disability has to be assessed at 25%. The claimant was aged about 36 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.4,95,000/- (Rs.11,000*12*15*25%) on account of 'loss of future income'.
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 7 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 -9- NC: 2024:KHC:29963 MFA No. 2434 of 2019 Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.
14. Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.
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 30,000 40,000
Medical expenses 10,000 10,000
Food, nourishment, 10,000 10,000
conveyance and
attendant charges
Loss of income during laid 8,000 33,000
up period
Loss of amenities 20,000 40,000
Loss of future income 72,000 4,95,000
Future medical expenses 10,000 10,000
Total 1,60,000 6,38,000
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29963
MFA No. 2434 of 2019
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.
c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,38,000/- as against Rs.1,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
d) The Corporation 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.: 83