Karnataka High Court

P.D Ramesh vs M/S. Tata Motors Ltd on 2 December, 2021

Bench: H T Prasad

                            1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

                MFA No.2351 OF 2015(MV)

BETWEEN:

P.D.Ramesh,
Aged about 37 years,
S/o Dyavarasegowda,
Residing at 5th Cross,
Raja Kempegowda Layout,
Channapatna Town-562160.                    ... Appellant

(By Sri. Vivekananda T.P., Advocate)

AND:

1.     M/s. Tata Motors Ltd.,
       Regional Sales Office,
       Pune-Bangalore Road (N.H.4)
       Near Highcourt,
       Dharwad-580 011.

2.     The new India Assurance
       Company Ltd.,
       No.2240/4, 1st Floor,
       Giriyamma Shambbugowda Complex,
       Church Road,
       Channapatna Town-562160.       ... Respondents

(By Sri. K.Kishore Kumar Reddy, Advocate for R2:
R1 served)
                            2



      This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:14.10.2014 passed
in MVC No.279/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge
JMFC, Additional MACT, Channapatna, Ramanagar District,
partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and
seeking enhancement of compensation.

      This MFA, coming on for admission, this day, this
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 14.10.2014 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Channapattana

in MVC No.279/2012.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 31.12.2010 at about 2.30

p.m. the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle

bearing registration No.KA-11/TC-887 at from

Kumbalgod on Bangalore - Mysore road near petrol

bunk of Sheshagiri village. At that time, a lorry

bearing registration No.KA-25/TC-887 came to the

road from petrol bunk without any indication and

dashed to the vehicle of 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 seeking compensation. It was pleaded

that he 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, the respondent No.2

appeared through counsel and 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. It was further pleaded

that the accident was due to the rash and negligent

riding of the vehicle by the claimant himself. The

driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid

driving licence as on the date of the accident. The

liability is subject to terms and conditions of the

policy. 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 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.Raju as PW-2 and got

exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On

behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined

as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1

to Ex.R2. 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.1,11,037/- along with interest at the rate of 6%

p.a. and directed the owner of the offending vehicle 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:

Firstly, at the time of the accident the claimant

was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing

business. Due to the accident he suffered grievous

injuries, he has examined the doctor as PW-2 who has

deposed that the claimant has suffered 41% limb

disability and 13.66% whole body disability. Due to

the disability he was unable to do his day today work.

The Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation for

'loss of future income due to disability'.

Secondly, due to the accident the claimant has

suffered grievous injuries. He was inpatient for a

period of 4 days, he has suffered lot of pain during

treatment and he has to suffer the disability and

unhappiness throughout his life. The compensation

awarded by the Tribunal for 'pain and sufferings' and

other incidental expenses is on the lower side and the

Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for 'loss

of amenities'.

Thirdly, Ex.R1 is the insurance policy produced

by the Insurance Company. It is not related to the

offending vehicle and there is no engine and chassis

number mentioned in Ex.R1. Since the same is not

applicable to the case on hand, the Tribunal has erred

in relying on Ex.R1.

Fourthly, Ex.R2 is a cover note. It is very clear

that the offending vehicle engine number has been

mentioned and since it has a transit policy and it has

covered the distance of 2,400 kms., the Insurance

Company has to pay the compensation. 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 claimant claims that he

was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, he has not

produced any documents to establish his income.

Further, even though the doctor has assessed the

whole body disability as 13.66%, the disability does

not come in the way of his day today work since there

is no 'loss of future income due to disability'.

Therefore the Tribunal has rightly not awarded any

compensation under the said head.

Secondly, considering the age and avocation of

the claimant and injuries suffered, the overall

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and

reasonable.

Thirdly, Ex.R1 is insurance policy, it covers

between 30.12.2009 to 29.12.2010. Since the

accident occurred on 31.12.2010, the policy is not

covered. Therefore, Insurance Company is not liable

to pay the compensation and the Tribunal has rightly

exonerated the Insurance Company. Hence, he sought

for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Perused the judgment and award and the original

records.

9. It is not in dispute that the claimant

suffered injuries in the accident occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its

driver.

The claimant has not produced any evidence

with regard to his income. Therefore, 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 2010, the notional income has to be taken at

Rs.5,500/- p.m.

As per wound certificate, the claimant has

sustained communited fracture left distal radius and

other injuries. The claimant was inpatient for 4 days.

PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the

claimant has suffered disability of 41% to particular

limb disability and 13.66% whole body disability.

Considering the evidence of the doctor and

considering the injuries suffered by the claimant, his

age and avocation I am of the opinion that the whole

body disability has to be assessed as 13.66%. The

claimant was aged about 34 years at the time of the

accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is

'14'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of

Rs.1,44,250/- (Rs.5,500*12*16*13.66%) on account

of 'loss of future income due to disability'.

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 and unhappiness throughout

his life. Considering the same, I am of the opinion that

the claimant is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards 'loss of

amenities'.

The compensation awarded by 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 20,000 20,000 Medical expenses 89,737 89,737 Towards lay off 1,000 1,000 compensation

Loss of amenities 0 10,000 Loss of future income 0 1,44,250 Total 111,037 2,65,287

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation

of Rs.2,65,287/-.

Re.liability:

11. The accident occurred on 31.12.2010. The

owner of the offending vehicle - the first respondent

has taken transit policy, which is produced by the

Insurance Company as Ex.R1. It does not have either

chassis number of engine number. Therefore, the

Tribunal has erred in relying on Ex.R1. In Ex.R2

produced by the Insurance Company in the cover note

wherein engine number of the offending vehicle has