Miss Parvathi vs Mr P Raghuram Karanth
2021 Latest Caselaw 147 Kant

                        1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                     BEFORE

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

           MFA No. 6805 OF 2013(MV)

BETWEEN:

MISS. PARVATHI
D/O NARYANA POOJARY
AGED 25 YEARS
R/AT KUKKAJE HOUSE
KURIYALA VILLAGE
BANTWAL TALUK, D.K-574219.
                                    ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI.G.RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADV. )

AND

1.    MR. P. RAGHURAM KARANTH
      S/O KRISHNAYYA KARANTH
      AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
      R/AT DR. GANESH NILAYA
      D.NO.3-143A, TENKA YEDAPADAVU
      SHIBRIKERE, MANGALORE
      D.K.-575006.
                            2



2.   UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL
     INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     BRANCH: URVA MARKET
     MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-575002
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     BRANCH MANAGER
                               ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV. R1:
SRI. H.N.KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADV. R2)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV   ACT    AGAINST   THE JUDGMENT        AND AWARD
DATED:18.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1149/2010
ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-3, D.K. MANGALORE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.


     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH
VIDEO      CONFERENCE,     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 18.4.2013 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 28.5.2010, the claimant was

standing on the extreme left side of the road at

Sornadu Bandashale Panjikallu Village, Bantwal Taluk,

at that time, Maruthi Wagon-R car bearing registration

No.KA-19/MA-4823 being driven by its driver at a high

speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to

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 on the ground that she was aged about

22 years at the time of the accident and she was

doing beedi rolling work and was earning Rs.5,000/-

p.m. It was pleaded that she also 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.1

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. It

was pleaded that there is no negligence on the part of

the driver of the car and the claimant herself has

contributed to the accident. 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.

The respondent No.2 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. It was pleaded that the

driver of the car was not having valid driving licence

at the time of the accident. 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 herself was

examined as PW-1 and two more witnesses were

examined as PWs-2 and 3 and got exhibited

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. On behalf of the

respondents, no witness was examined but got

exhibited document namely Ex.R1. 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.1,56,700/- 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

submitted that even though the claimant claims that

she was doing beedi rolling work and earning

Rs.5,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the

notional income as merely as Rs.3,000/- per month.

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

that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of

15% to left forearm. But the Tribunal has erred in

taking the whole body disability at only 5%. Thirdly,

the claimant has produced medical expenses

amounting to Rs.46,000/-, but the Tribunal is not

justified in awarding compensation of Rs.23,225/-.

Fourthly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. She was treated as

inpatient for a period of 62 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 contended that even

though the claimant claims that she was doing beedi

rolling work and earning Rs.5,000/- per month, she

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 15% to left forearm.

But the Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by

the claimant, has rightly assessed the whole body

disability at 5%. Thirdly, considering the oral and

documentary evidence, the Tribunal has granted just

and reasonable compensation and it does not call for

interference. Hence, he sought dismissal of the

appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the records.

9. It is not in dispute that the accident has

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

offending vehicle by its driver.

The claimant has not produced any evidence

with regard to her income. Therefore, considering the

age and avocation of the claimant, the notional

income can be taken at Rs.5,000/- p.m.

As per wound certificate, the claimant has

suffered fracture of distal radius left wrist, fracture of

neck of fibula and also fracture of nasal bone. PW-2,

the doctor has stated that the claimant has suffered

permanent disability at 15% to left forearm. The

Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at

5%. The claimant was aged about 22 years at the

time of the accident and multiplier applicable to her

age group is '18'. Thus, the claimant is entitled to

compensation of Rs.54,000/- (Rs.5,000*12*18*5%)

on account of 'loss of future income'.

The nature of injuries sustained by the claimant

suggests that she must have been under rest and

treatment for a period of 5 months. The income of the

claimant is enhanced to Rs.5,000/- per month.

Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of

Rs.25,000/- (Rs.5,000*5 months) under the head

'loss of income during laid up period'.

The claimant was treated as inpatient for more

than 62 days in the hospital and thereafter, has

received further treatment. Hence, we are inclined to

enhance the sum awarded under the head of

'conveyance, nourishment and attendance charges'

from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered

grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. She 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, I am

inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal under the head of 'loss of amenities' from

Rs.10,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and under the head of

'pain and sufferings' from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal

under other heads remains unaltered.

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 50,000 Medical expenses 23,225 23,225 Food, nourishment, 30,000 40,000 conveyance and attendant charges Loss of income during 6,000 25,000 laid up period Loss of amenities 10,000 50,000 Loss of future income 32,400 54,000 Future medical expenses 15,000 15,000 Total 156,625 257,225 Rounded off 156,700 257,300

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation

of Rs.257,300/-.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the compensation amount along with interest at 6%

p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of

receipt of copy of this judgment excluding interest on

the compensation awarded under the head 'future

medical expenses'.

To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the

Claims Tribunal is modified.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DM