Karnataka High Court
Sri. Udaya vs Reliance General Insurance Co. ... 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.8573 OF 2016(MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI. UDAYA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY
R/AT HOTEL SUKRUTHA
SALAHUNASE
KAGGALIPURA POST
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
PRESENT ADDRESS:
#14, 36TH "A" CROSS
JAYANAGAR, 9TH BLOCK
BENGALURU-560 069.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.GIRIMALLAIAH., ADV.)
AND
1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
BRANCH OFFICE, EAST WING
5TH FLOOR, #28
CENTENARY BUILDING
M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001
BY ITS MANAGER.
2
2. SMT. SUNANDA
MAJOR
W/O. THIMMAIAH
#133, 5TH MAIN
YELACHENAHALLI
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-560 078.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.H C BETSUR, ADV. FOR R1:
NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W V/O DTD: 12.02.2021)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 01.10.2016 PASSED
IN MVC NO.5215/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, & XXXIII ACMM,
MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, 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 01.10.2016 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in
MVC No.5215/2014.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 26.10.2014 at about 07.30
P.M., when the claimant was going by the side of
Kanakapura Road, Opposite to Preetham Service
Station at Salahunase Village, at that time, one
Tempo Traveller bearing registration No.KA-05-D-
3891 came 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 only
respondent No.1 has filed written statement in which
the averments made in the petition were denied. It
was pleaded that the petition itself is false and
frivolous in the eye of law. 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 and Dr.Avinash Parthasarathy was
examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents
namely Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. 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.1,00,000/- 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, 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 a cook and earning Rs.9,000/- per month, but the
Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards
'loss of income during the laid up period'.
Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his
evidence that the claimant has suffered permanent
physical impairment in left upper limb to the tune of
14% and he has admitted that he has not assessed
the disability to the whole body. The Tribunal has
failed to grant any compensation towards 'loss of
future income due to disability'. He further deposed
that the claimant required Rs.20,000/- for removal of
implants. But the Tribunal has not granted any
compensation towards 'future medical expenses'.
Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has
sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as
inpatient for a period of 17 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 global
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- granted by the
Tribunal is 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 PW-2, the doctor has stated
in his evidence that the claimant has suffered
permanent physical impairment in left upper limb to
the tune of 14% but in his cross-examination, he has
admitted that the said disability of 14% is related only
to the upper limb. Since the fractures are reunited,
there is no disability and it will not affect to do his day
to day work. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not
granted any compensation towards 'loss of income
due to disability'. But considering the oral and
documentary evidence, the Tribunal has rightly
granted global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.
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 2014, the notional income has to be taken at
Rs.8,500/- p.m.
As per wound certificate, the claimant has
sustained fracture of left ulna and injuries to head and
left ear pinna. PW-2, the doctor has stated in his
evidence that the claimant has suffered permanent
physical impairment in left upper limb to the tune of
14% but in his cross-examination, he has admitted
that the said disability of 14% is related only to the
upper limb and fractures are reunited. Therefore,
taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor,
PW-2 and injuries suffered by the claimant, I am of
the opinion that the whole body disability can be
assessed at 5%. The claimant is aged about 55 years
at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable
to his age group is '11'. Thus, the claimant is
entitled for compensation of Rs.56,100/-
(Rs.8,500*12*11*5%) 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.17,000/- (Rs.8,500*2 months)
under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.
The claimant was treated as inpatient for more
than 17 days in the hospital and thereafter, has
received further treatment. Therefore, the claimant is
entitled for the compensation under the head of
'conveyance, nourishment and attendance charges'
Rs.10,000/-.
Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered
grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. 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 same, the
claimant is entitled for the compensation under the
head of 'medical expenses' of Rs.18,207/-,
Rs.10,000/- under the head of 'future medical
expenses', 'loss of amenities' of Rs.40,000/- and 'pain
and suffering' of Rs.40,000/-.
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 40,000
Medical expenses 18,207
Food, nourishment, 10,000
conveyance and
attendant charges
1,00,000
Loss of income during 17,000
laid up period
Loss of amenities 40,000
Loss of future income 56,100
Future medical expenses 10,000
Total 1,00,000 1,91,307
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.1,91,307/-.
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.
The Tribunal is directed to release the enhanced
compensation in favour of the claimant after due
verification.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HA/-
