Karnataka High Court
Karthik Reddy vs Zoom Car India Pvt. Ltd on 4 December, 2021
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.5752 OF 2019 (MV)
BETWEEN:
KARTHIK REDDY
S/O LATE PRABHAKARA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/AT NO.321, 1ST CROSS
CHIKKAJALA II BLOCK
PALLAKKAMMA NAGAR
BANGALORE - 562 157. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ZOOM CAR INDIA PVT. LTD.
DIAMOND DISTRICT, 7TH FLOOR
TOWER, B, OLD AIRPORT ROAD
BANGALORE - 08.
2. ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE
CO. LTD., NO.30, JNR CITY CENTRE
OPP. KANTEERAVA STADIUM
RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD
SAMPANGIRAM NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027 ... RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SRI. RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADV. FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 4.12.2021 NOTICE
TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:14.03.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.855/2018 ON
THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND
MEMBER MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU (SCCH-18) PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENAHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 14.03.2019 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in
MVC No.855/2018.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 25.01.2018 at about
04.45 P.M., the claimant was riding his motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-04-JN-1299 from Nandi
Hills towards Chikkajala-Bengaluru on Nandi hills road,
Chikkaballapur Taluk and District, slowly and
cautiously on the left side of the road and when he
reached near 34th and 35th curve, at that time, the
driver of the Car bearing registration No.KA-03-AE-
7828 came from opposite direction with high speed in
a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger
human life and safety of others and dashed against
the claimant's motorcycle. 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 Nos.1
and 2 being the owner and insurer of the offending
vehicle have appeared through counsel and filed
separate written statement in which the averments
made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded by
the owner of the offending vehicle that the petition
itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. The driver
of the offending vehicle had valid driving licence as on
the date of the accident. The offending vehicle was
insured with the Insurance Company and it was valid
as on the date of the accident. Hence, he sought for
dismissal of the claim petition.
It was pleaded by the Insurance Company that
the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of
law. It was further pleaded that 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 claim petition is bad for non-joinder of
the necessary parties as the owner and the insurer of
the motorcycle were not made as parties to the
proceedings. 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.
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, other two witnesses were
examined as PW-2 and PW-3 and Dr.Avinash
Parthasarathy was examined as PW-4 and got
exhibited documents namely Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.31. On
behalf of the respondents, neither examined any
witness nor exhibited any document. 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.8,33,950/- 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 has
raised the following contentions:
Firstly, the claimant was a student at the time of
the accident and while assessing the income of the
claimant, the Tribunal has considered Rs.8,500/- per
annum, which is on lower. Even as per the guidelines
issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority, if the accident has taken place in the year
2018, the notional income has to be taken at
Rs.12,500/- p.m.
Secondly, PW-4, the doctor has stated in his
evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of
26% to whole body. But the Tribunal has erred in
taking the whole body disability at only 20%.
Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has
sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as
inpatient for a period of 9 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 suffering' and
other heads are on the lower side. Hence, he sought
for enhancement of compensation.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company has raised following counter
contentions:
Firstly, the claimant has not produced any
documents to establish his income. Therefore, the
Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the
claimant notionally.
Secondly, PW-4, the doctor has stated in his
evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of
26% to whole body. But he has not assessed limb
disability. The Tribunal considering the injuries
sustained by the claimant, has rightly assessed the
whole body disability at 20%.
Thirdly, in view of judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE
AND OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS
(MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters
disposed of on 24.8.2020), the claimants are
entitled for 6% interest but the Tribunal has granted
8% interest which is on the higher side.
Lastly, considering the oral and documentary
evidence, the Tribunal has granted just and
reasonable compensation and it does not call for
interference. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the judgment and award.
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has
sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle by its driver.
The claimant has not produced any documents
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 2018, the notional income has to be taken at
Rs.12,500/- p.m.
As per wound certificate, the claimant has
sustained fracture shaft of right femur with ACL tear
avulsion, fracture of PCL right knee of upper third
right fibula, fracture base of 3rd and 5th metacarpal
right hand and lacerated injury over the lower lip. PW-
4, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the
claimant has suffered disability of 26% to the whole
body. But he has not assessed the limb disability.
Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of
the doctor, PW-4 and injuries mentioned in the
wound certificate, the Tribunal has rightly assessed
the whole body disability at 20%. The claimant is
aged about 24 years at the time of the accident and
multiplier applicable to his age group is '18'. Thus,
the claimant is entitled for compensation of
Rs.5,40,000/- (Rs.12,500*12*18*20%) on account of
'loss of future income'.
Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered
grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He was
inpatient in the hospital for a period of 9 days. 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 evidence of the
claimant, injuries suffered by the claimant and also he
was a sports man representing Karnataka in Athletic, I
am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of amenities' from
Rs.10,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.
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 50,000 50,000
Medical expenses 3,46,250 3,45,250
Food, nourishment, 15,000 15,000
conveyance and
attendant charges
Loss of income during 25,500 25,500
laid up period
Loss of amenities 10,000 50,000
Loss of future income 3,67,200 5,40,000
Future medical expenses 20,000 20,000
Total 8,33,950 10,45,750
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in
part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
The claimant is entitled to a total compensation
of Rs.10,45,750/-.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest 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 excluding interest
for the compensation awarded under the head of
'future medical expenses'. The enhanced
compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum.
The Tribunal is directed to release the enhanced
compensation in favour of the claimant after due
verification.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HA/-
