Karnataka High Court
Chetan Kumar vs Siju Sabhasten on 15 December, 2021
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.5405 OF 2016(MV)
BETWEEN:
Chetan Kumar,
S/o Karibasappa,
Aged about 29 years,
Agriculturist,
R/at Bandibyranahalli Village,
Shikaripura Taluk-577427,
Shimoga District. ... Appellant
(By Smt. Anitha H.R., Advocate)
AND:
1. Siju Sabhasten,
S/o Sabhasten,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at Kuran house,
Muniyal and Varange Village,
Karkala Taluk,
Udupi District-574104.
2. Shashi Kumar,
S/o Ramar,
Major,
R/at 2-57, CRC Magapa House,
Koolathaga Post,
Manikara, Puttur Taluk,
Dakshina Kannada-574201.
2
3. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
B.H.Road, Shimoga Town-577201,
Rep. by its Manager. ... Respondents
(By Sri. O.Mahesh, Advocate for R3:
R1 served: Notice to R2 is D/W
v/o dated: 20.06.2017)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:31.03.2016 passed
in MVC No.23/2015 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge
(Sr.Dn) & Additional MACT-13, Itinerary, Shikaripura,
partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and
seeking enhancement of compensation.
This MFA, coming on for hearing 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 31.03.2016 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shikaripura in
MVC No.23/2015.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 22.09.2014, the claimant
was proceeding in a motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-14/EC-0603 as a pillion rider to Soorimannu
village, Karkala Taluk, Udupi District. At that time
another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-21/R-
4428 being ridden by its rider 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 Nos.1
and 3 appeared through counsel and filed separate
written statements in which the averments made in
the petition were denied. The age, avocation and
income of the claimant and the medical expenses are
denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false
and frivolous in the eye of law. The liability is subject
to terms and conditions of the policy. 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.2 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.Ashwatha Acharya as CW-1
and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P15
and C1 to C3. On behalf of the respondents, neither
any witness was examined nor got exhibited
documents. 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.1,06,964/- 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 he
was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working in a
rice mill and doing agricultural work, the Tribunal has
considered the monthly income of the claimant as
Rs.4,000/-, which is on the lower side.
Secondly, due to the accident the claimant
suffered grievous injuries, he was inpatient for 12
days, he has examined the doctor who assessed the
disability of 7%, due to the disability the claimant was
unable to do his day today work, but the Tribunal has
not awarded any compensation for 'loss of future
income'.
Thirdly, due to the accident the claimant has
suffered grievous injuries, he has suffered lot of pain
during treatment and he has to suffer the disability
and unhappiness throughout his life. 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, she sought
for allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company has raised the following
contentions:
Firstly, the claimant claims that he was earning
Rs.20,000/- per month, he has not produced any
document to establish the same. Therefore, the
Tribunal has rightly assessed the notional income of
the claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month.
Secondly, even though the doctor has assessed
the disability of 7% to particular limb and 3% whole
body disability, it does not affect the claimant to do
his day today work throughout his life and there is no
loss of income due to disability. Therefore, the
Tribunal has rightly not granted any compensation for
'loss of future income' .
Thirdly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are
minor in nature, he was inpatient for only 12 days.
Considering the evidence of the doctor and
considering the age and avocation of the claimant the
overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just
and reasonable. 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 2014, the notional income has to be taken at
Rs.8,500/- p.m.
Due to the accident the claimant has suffered
laceration 4th web space, laceration over dorsum of
foot, right 4th and 5th metacarpal shaft fracture. He
was inpatient for 12 days. Considering the evidence of
the doctor and the injuries suffered by the claimant,
the whole body disability has to be assessed as 3%.
The claimant was aged about 32 years at the time of
the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group
is '16'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation
of Rs.48,960/- (Rs.8,500*12*16*3%) on account of
'loss of future income'.
Due to the accident the claimant has suffered
the aforesaid injuries. He has suffered lot of pain
during treatment and he has to suffer the disability
and unhappiness throughout his life. Hence, I am
inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from
Rs.15,000/- to Rs.25,000/-, 'loss of amenities' from
Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- and 'loss of income
during laid-up period' for a period of 3 months, i.e.,
25,500/- (Rs.8,500*3).
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 15,000 25,000
Medical expenses 37,604 37,604
Food, nourishment, 17,000 17,000
conveyance and
attendant charges
Loss of income during 12,000 25,500
laid up period
Loss of amenities 10,000 20,000
Loss of future income 15,360 48,960
Total 1,06,964 1,74,064
The claimant is entitled to a total compensation
of Rs.1,74,064/-.
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.
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the
Claims Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
The Tribunal is directed to release the
compensation amount in favour of the claimant after
due verification.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Cm/-
