Karnataka High Court

Smt Uma @ Umadevi vs Sri Shrikantha on 13 December, 2021

Bench: H T Prasad

                       1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                    BEFORE

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

           MFA No.4151 OF 2019(MV)

BETWEEN:

SMT UMA @ UMADEVI
W/O R. THIPPAREDDY
NOW AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT ALAMBAGIRI VILLAGE
CHINTAMANI TALUK
CHIKKABAKKAPUR DISTRICT.
                                   ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI.GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADV.)

AND

1 . SRI SHRIKANTHA
    S/O BOJARAJU
    MAJOR IN AGE
    R/AT NO. E179/4
    KONANAKUNTE JSS SCHOOL CROSS
    KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT
    BANGALORE-560062.

2 . THE RELIANCE GENERAL
    INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
    VTH FLOOR, WEST WING
                            2



    CENTENARY BUILDING
    M G ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
    REP: BY ITS MANAGER.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DATED: 13.12.2021)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST       THE      JUDGMENT        AND       AWARD
DATED:07.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.6363/2016
ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-11), PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.


     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE 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 7.9.2018 passed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in MVC

6363/2016.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 11.5.2016, the claimant was

going towards Gunnahalli Village from Kaiwara as a

pillion rider on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-

04-R-2179, at that time, motorcycle cab bearing

registration No.KA-05-AD-9310 being driven by its

driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent

manner, 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. 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.Nagaraj.B.N. was examined

as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1

to Ex.P16. On behalf of the respondents, neither any

witness was examined nor any document was

produced. 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.192,872/- 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, this appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the claimant has

raised the following contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that she

was working as agricultural coolie and earning

Rs.12,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the

notional income as merely as Rs.8,000/- per month.

Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his

evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of

52% to upper limb and 17% to whole body. But the

Tribunal has erred in taking the whole body disability

at only 6%.

Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. She was treated as

inpatient for a period of 5 days. Even after discharge

from the hospital, she was not in a position to

discharge his regular work. She 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 sufferings' and

other heads are on the lower side. Hence, he sought

for allowing the appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for

the Insurance Company has raised following counter

contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he

was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, he has not

produced any documents to establish his income.

Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the

income of the claimant notionally.

Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his

evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of

52% to upper limb and 17% to whole body. The

Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the

claimant, has rightly assessed the whole body

disability at 6%.

Thirdly, considering the age and avocation of the

claimant, 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 records.

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 2016, the notional income has to be taken at

Rs.9,500/- p.m.

As per wound certificate, the claimant has

sustained fracture of right shoulder, abrasion over

right elbow and abrasion over right big toe and left

elbow. PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence

that the claimant has suffered disability of 52% to

upper limb and 17% to whole body. Therefore, taking

into consideration the deposition of the doctor, PW-2

and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, I am

of the opinion that the whole body disability has to be

taken at 14%. The claimant is aged about 42

years at the time of the accident and multiplier

applicable to her age group is '14'. Thus, the

claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,23,440/-

(Rs.9500*12*14*14%) on account of 'loss of future

income'.

The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant

must have been under rest and treatment for a period

of 2 months. Therefore, 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'.

The claimant was treated as inpatient for more

than 6 days in the hospital and thereafter, has

received further treatment. Due to the accident, the

claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also

undergone surgery. She has suffered lot of pain

during treatment and she has to suffer with the

disability stated by the doctor throughout her life.

Considering the same, I am inclined to enhance the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head

of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.30,000/-

and under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from

Rs.10,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.

Considering the nature of injuries, 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 10,000 40,000 Medical expenses 73,397 73,397 Food, nourishment, 2,500 2,500 conveyance and attendant charges Loss of income during 1,335 19,000 laid up period Loss of amenities 10,000 30,000 Loss of future income 80,640 223,440 Future medical expenses 15,000 15,000 Total 192,872 403,337

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.403,337/-.

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 excluding

interest for the compensation awarded under the head

of 'future medical expenses'.

The Tribunal is directed to release the enhanced