Karnataka High Court

Karunakara Shetty vs Managing Trustee on 14 December, 2021

Bench: H T Prasad

                         1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                      BEFORE

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

             MFA No.6752 OF 2016(MV)

BETWEEN:

KARUNAKARA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
S/O LATE RAJU SHETTY
R/AT SWARNA MEGHA HOUSE
NEAR OIL MILL
KATTINGERI VILLAGE
MOODUBELLE POST
UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT-576101.
                                       ...APPELLANT

(BY SMT. NAZEEFA M MULLA, ADV. FOR
SRI.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADV.)

AND

1 . MANAGING TRUSTEE
    M/S JEEVAN WELFARE TRUST
    REP BY SISTER DONALD PAIS
    AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
    D/O SEBASTIAN PAIS
    ARUNODAYA SPECIAL SCHOOL
    TALUK OFFICE ROAD
    KARKALA KASBA VILLAGE
    KARKALA TLAUK-576101.
                            2



2 . THE BRANCH MANAGER
    UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
    KARKALA BRANCH
    SRINIVAS COMPLEX
    A.S.ROAD
    KARKALA TALUK-576101.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.K.S. LAKSHMINARASAPPA, ADV. FOR
    SRI.A.M. VENKATESH, ADV. FOR R2:)


     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.06.2015 PASSED
IN MVC NO.1068/13 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & AMACT,KARKALA, 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 08.06.2015 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkala in MVC

No.1068/2013.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 27.06.2013 at about 08.45

A.M. the clamant was riding his Hero Honda No.KA-

20-B-8418 from Ranganpalke to Bailoor and when he

reached near Mayadi of Kowdoor Village, Force Toofan

Vehicle bearing registration No.KA-20-B-2515 came

from Bailoor side in a rash and negligent manner and

dashed against 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 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 that the petition itself is false and frivolous

in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the

accident was not due to the involvement of the vehicle

bearing registration No.KA-20-B-2515. Hence, he

sought for dismissal of the petition.

It was pleaded by the insurer that the petition

itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was

further pleaded that the owner of the offending vehicle

has violated the policy condition and the same was

used otherwise than in accordance with the conditions

in the policy. 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.

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, another witness was examined as

PW-2 and Dr.Monappa Naik was examined as PW-3

and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-

144 and Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6. On behalf of the

respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and

got exhibited documents namely Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.5. 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.2,71,430/- 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, at the time of the accident, the clamant

was aged about 56 years. He was working as a Head

Master in the Government School and he was getting

a salary of Rs.23,000/- per month.

Secondly, Due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. PW-2, the doctor has

stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered

limb disability of 36%. But the Tribunal has failed to

grant any compensation for 'loss of future income'. He

was treated as inpatient in the hospital for a period of

12 days. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment.

He has to suffered with this disability and unhappiness

throughout of his life. Considering the same, the

compensation granted by the Tribunal under the

heads of 'pain and sufferings', 'Inconvenience' 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, even though PW-3, the doctor has stated

in his evidence that the claimant has suffered limb

disability of 36%, there is no loss of income due to the

disability since he has continued in his service.

Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not granted any

compensation towards 'loss of future income'. The

claimant has been paid salary even during the laid up

period. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not granted

any compensation under the head of 'loss of income

during the laid up period'.

Secondly, in view of judgment of the Division

Bench of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE

xzc 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.

Even though PW-3, the doctor has stated in his

evidence that the claimant has suffered limb disability

of 36%, since he has continued in his service, there is

no loss of income due to the disability. Therefore, the

Tribunal has rightly not granted any compensation

towards 'loss of future income'.

As per wound certificate, the claimant has

sustained fracture of radius and ulna of right forearm,

tibia and fibula, fracture of right leg and ascetabular

fracture of right hip and laceration over right leg.

The claimant was treated as inpatient for more

than 12 days in the hospital and thereafter, has

received further treatment. Considering the evidence

of the claimant, injuries suffered by him, I am inclined

to enhance the compensation awarded under the head

of 'Inconvenience' from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.70,000/-

and 'Future Medical Expenses' from Rs.20,000/- to

Rs.30,000/- and 'Rest, Nourishment and attendant

charges' from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-.

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 75,000 75,000 Medical expenses 1,41,430 1,41,430 Food, nourishment, 10,000 15,000 conveyance and attendant charges Conveyance 5,000 5,000 Future medical expenses 20,000 30,000 Inconvenience 20,000 70,000 Total 2,71,430 3,36,430

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.3,36,430/-.

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. The enhanced

compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum.

This Court while condoning the delay, has denied

the interest for a period of 363 days. Hence, the