Shivaranajani @ Ranjani vs N Huchegowda
2021 Latest Caselaw 5556 Kant

                          1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                       BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

              MFA No.4822 OF 2013 (MV)

BETWEEN:

SHIVARANJANI @ RANJANI
W/O.Y.B. PRAKASHA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF YALECHAGANAHALLI
VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK-573 211,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
C/O BHARATHI,
UDAYAGIRI EXTENSION,
N.D.R. COLLEGE ROAD,
HASSAN-573102.
                                         ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G.M. SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. CHETHAN B, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     N. HUCHEGOWDA
       S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, MAJOR,
       RESIDENT OF BOMMENAHALLI
       VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI,
       HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT-573 201.
                            2


2.   THE GENERAL MANAGER,
     UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL
     INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
     K.V.D. TOWER NO.743, 2ND FLOOR,
     ABOVE BOLIK LANE FINANCE,
     IN FRONT OF 100 FEET ROAD,
     MADRAS ROAD, INDIRA NAGAR,
     BENGALURU-560 036
                                  ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.N. KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE
    FOR R2;
    NOTICE TO R1 D/W)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
09.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1342/2010 ON THE
FILE OF THE MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                      JUDGMENT

This appeal lays challenge to the judgment passed

by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal at Hassan (hereinafter referred

to as 'the Tribunal, for short) in MVC No.1342/2010,

whereby the Tribunal has granted compensation of

Rs.1,44,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. for the

injury sustained by the claimant in a road traffic

accident.

2. The briefs facts case of claimaint is that on

18.06.2010 at about 4.30 p.m she along with her

husband Prakash were going by walk on left side of the

road, near Meridian Hotel, S.B.G. Theatre, Hassan City,

at that time a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-

13-S-8177 being driven in a rash and negligent manner

and dashed against the petitioner. Due to the said

impact, the petitioner sustained injuries and was

admitted in Hemavathi Hospital, Hassan, where she was

treated as an inpatient and injuries have resulted in

permanent disability affecting her loss of future earning

capacity. Hence, she has filed an appeal claiming

compensation.

appeared and filed their separate written statements

and denied the entire averments made in the petition.

Respondent No.2 contended that compensation claimed

is exorbitant. The liability is subject to terms and

conditions of the policy. The rider of the offending

vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence as

on the date of the accident. It was pleaded that the

owner of the offending vehicle has violated the terms

and conditions of the insurance policy. It was further

pleaded that the claimant has falsely implicated the

offending vehicle in the accident in order to get

compensation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the

petition.

4. 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, Dr. Ramakrishnabhat was examined

as PW-2 and got marked documents namely Ex.P1 to

Ex.P11. On behalf of the respondents, they did not

examine any witness but marked Ex.R.1 - Hospital

intimation letter. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned

judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on

account of rash and negligent riding of the offending

vehicle by its rider, as a result of which, the claimant

sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the

claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,44,000/-

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

claimant has preferred this appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the appeal memo, impugned judgment and also

trial Court records.

6. Sri. G.M. Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for

Sri. Chethan B, learned counsel for claimant contended

that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the

evidence of doctor and disability sustained by her. The

income taken by the Tribunal itself is on the lower side

and the compensation awarded under various heads

such as pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of

income during laid up period, future medical expenses,

food and nourishment are on the lower side. The

claimant has adduced the evidence of the doctor.

Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.

7. On the other hand, Sri. H.N. Keshava

Prashanth, learned counsel for the Insurance Company

supported the judgment and contended that Tribunal

after taking into consideration of all the aspects, has

awarded the compensation which is just and fair and

needs no interference. Hence, he sought for dismissal

of the appeal.

8. It is not in dispute that the accident has

occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the

offending vehicle by its rider.

9. As per the evidence of Doctor, the petitioner

has suffered fracture of neck of right femur and also

abrasion. Accordingly, the injured sustained one simple

injury and two grievous injuries. It is also evident that

the claimant has undergone surgery. The doctor has

opined that there was disability of 20% and another

Rs.20,000/- is required for future medical expenses.

10. From the medical evidence, it is evident that

the petitioner has sustained fracture of neck of right

femur and she was inpatient for a period of four days

from 18.06.2010 to 21.06.2010. The medical records

are also produced. Looking into the expenses incurred

and nature of injury sustained and she was inpatient for

a period of four days, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded

instead of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards

the head 'Pain and suffering'. In so far as medical

expenses is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly awarded

a sum of Rs.40,000/-. Towards Special diet, nursing,

extra nourishment and conveyance charges, the Tribunal

has awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/-. Looking into the

period of treatment and nature of injury, the same

requires to be enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. As per the

chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services

Authority in consultation with the Insurance Companies,

the notional income in the absence of proof of income to

be adopted for the year 2010 is Rs.5,500/- per month.

However, the claimant has pleaded that she was earning

Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, the same is restricted to

Rs.5,000/-. Looking into the nature of fracture, she

requires rest for a period of three months. Therefore,

under the head of loss of earning capacity during laid up

period, the compensation is enhanced to a sum of

Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.4,000/- as awarded by the

Tribunal. Regarding the loss of future earning, the

Tribunal has taken disability at 6% to the whole body,

which I deem is appropriate. Taking the notional

income at Rs.5,000/-, given the age of the petitioner,

the multiplier applicable is '18'. Thus, on the count of

loss of future income, a sum of Rs. 64,800/- (Rs.5,000 x

12 x 18 x 6%)is awarded towards 'loss of future income'

to the petitioner. Towards loss of amenities of life, the

Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The

petitioner has sustained fracture of femur. She has to

suffer this disability throughout her life. Therefore,

towards 'loss of amenities' a sum of Rs.25,000/- is

awarded as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal. The doctor has stated that claimant requires

one more surgery for the purpose of removal of

implants. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-,

looking to the nature of treatment and fracture, I deem

it appropriate to enhance to a sum of Rs.15,000/-

towards the head 'Future medical expenses', which shall

not carry any interest. Thus, petitioner would be

entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,88,000/- as

against Rs.1,44,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

11. 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 suffering                20,000           30,000
Medical expenses                  40,000           40,000
Special diet, nursing,             5,000             8,000
extra nourishment and
conveyance charges
Attendant charges                    3,000          3,000
Loss of income during                4,000         15,000
treatment period
Loss of future earning              51,840         64,800

Towards loss of amenities           10,000         25,000
Future medical expenses              10,000         15,000
             Total                1,43,840       2,00,800

Thus, petitioner would be entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.1,43,840/- as against Rs.2,00,800/-

awarded by the Tribunal.

Hence, the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part.

ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.2,00,800 (Rupees Two Lakh Eight Hundred only) as against Rs.1,44,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of the claim petition till its realization. The future medical expenses do not carry any interest.

iii) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability and disbursement remains intact.

iv) The respondent No.2 shall make good of the difference amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.

Costs made easy.

Sd/-

JUDGE

AG