Revanna Siddappa. S vs Muniraju. M. V.
2021 Latest Caselaw 205 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                          PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                            AND

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

                  M.F.A.No.1990/2018 (MV)

BETWEEN :

REVANNA SIDDAPPA S.,
S/O SIDDA LINGAIAH,
AGED 41 YEARS,
R/AT THIRUMALE MAIN ROAD,
MAGADI TOWN, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT-562120                      ...APPELLANT

                  (BY SRI D.S.SRIDHAR, ADV.)

AND :

1.      MUNIRAJU M.V.,
        S/O MUNIVENKATAIAH, MAJOR,
        R/AT # 54, SHIVANAHALLI,
        VADDARA DODDI VILLAGE,
        BANNIKUPPE POST, KAILANCHA HOBLI,
        RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT-571511

2.      M/s NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
        R O # 144, 2ND FLOOR,
        SUBHARAM COMPLEX,
        M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560001
        REP BY ITS MANAGER                     ...RESPONDENTS

        (BY SMT.GEETHA RAJ, ADV. FOR R-2; R-1 SERVED.)
                          -2-

      THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
13.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC No.660/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
XIX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT,
BENGALURU (SCCH-17), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.

      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                    JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment and

award dated 13.10.2017 passed in MVC No.660/2016

on the file of the XIX Addl. Sr. Civil Judge & MACT,

Bangalore (SCCH-17) [Tribunal for short].

2. The claimant instituted the petition under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking

compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the

road traffic accident.

3. It was averred that on 31.8.2015 at about

7.45 a.m. while the claimant was riding the motor cycle

bearing Reg.No.KA-42/R-2404 on Thirumale-

Panakanakallu Road, Magadi Town, at that time a

speeding motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-42-Q-3168

came from opposite direction and dashed to the motor

cycle in which the claimant was riding. Due to the said

impact, he fell down and sustained injuries. He was

shifted to Government Hospital, Magadi wherein first

aid was administered and then to BGS Hospital

wherein he took treatment as an inpatient. It was

contended that the claimant was earning Rs.20,000/-

per month doing agriculture. Due to the accidental

injuries, he became disabled and he is not able to

perform his work as earlier which indeed has adversely

affected him mentally, physically and financially.

4. On these set of facts and grounds,

compensation was sought by the claimant.

5. On issuance of notice, the 2nd respondent

owner of the vehicle has failed to appear and was placed

exparte. At the instance of the claimant, 1st and 3rd

respondents were deleted and the 4th respondent was

impleaded. 4th respondent resisted the claim by filing

written statement denying the petition averments. It

was contended that false complaint was filed after 16

days of the alleged accident which shows false

implication of the insured motor cycle in collusion with

the owner of the insured motor cycle to make wrongful

gain. Without prejudice to the said contentions, it was

contended that the claimant was himself negligent in

not following the traffic regulations. Accordingly, he

prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were

framed and answered allowing the petition in part

awarding compensation of Rs.13,59,211/- with interest

@ 7.5% p.a. (excluding future medical expenses) from

the date of petition till its realization.

7. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of

compensation, the claimant has preferred the present

appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued

that the Tribunal has awarded meager compensation

under different heads. Having regard to the nature of

injuries and its impact for the rest of his life, the

compensation awarded is disproportionate and the

same requires to be enhanced substantially.

9. Learned counsel for the insurer submitted

that on profuse analysis of the material evidence, the

Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation

and the same does not call for interference by this

court. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the

appeal.

10. We have carefully considered the rival

submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the

parties and perused the original records.

11. The factum of accident and the injuries

sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident in

question are not in dispute. It is borne out from the

records that the claimant has suffered the following

injuries:

i) Left fronto temporo parietal SDH & EDH,

ii) Right front temporal contusion and

iii) Right great toe distral phalynx and EHL

avulsion. He also suffered a cut lacerated

wound sutured over forehead outside and

bilateral black eye and right toe laceration.

12. As per the medical records, the said injuries

are grievous in nature. The claimant has taken

treatment as an inpatient at BGS Global Hospital from

31.8.2015 to 16.9.2015. He underwent left FTPL

decompressive craniotomy and evacuation of EDH

under general anesthesia. He got admitted for second

time on 20.9.2015 and discharged on 22.9.2015. Again

he got admitted on 19.10.2015 and discharged on

22.10.2015 and he was subjected to bone flap

replacement. He underwent left fronto temporo parietal

autologus cranioplasty under general anesthesia on

22.10.2015. Thus, the medical records would disclose

that he has taken treatment for 25 days under general

anesthesia on multiple occasions.

13. Having regard to the nature of injures

sustained by the claimant, the disability was assessed

at 42% to the whole body by Dr.Sreedhara who was

examined as PW-3. Considering the same, the Tribunal

has determined the permanent physical disability of the

claimant at 30% which in our view requires to be re-

considered in the light of the injuries sustained as

aforesaid and the disability assessed by the doctor. In

our considered view, it would be appropriate to

determine the permanent disability to the whole body at

35%.

14. Re-determining the monthly income of the

injured at Rs.9,000/- per month in terms of the chart

prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services

Authority which is consistently followed by this Court in

the absence of proof of income, while determining the

monthly income of the injured in the road traffic

accident, taking the physical disability at 35%, applying

the multiplier of 15 considering the age of the injured as

40 years, loss of future income due to permanent

disability would work to Rs.5,67,000/- (9000 x 12 x

35% x 15).

15. In view of the re-determination of monthly

income of Rs.9,000/-, the loss of income during laid up

period is re-assessed at Rs.45,000/-. It is obvious that

the claimant has to forego many of the amenities for the

rest of his life and has to suffer the inconvenience due

to the accidental injuries. Hence, we deem it appropriate

to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards future

amenities and happiness. It is reasonable to award a

sum of Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses. In

all other respects the compensation awarded by the -

Tribunal under different heads remains intact. The total

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed

as under:

Sl.No. Particulars Amount [in Rs.] Towards pain and

1. 75,000 suffering Towards attendant

2. charges, extra food and 35,000 conveyance expenses Towards medical

3. 7,96,211 expenses Loss of Income during 45,000

4. laid up period Loss of income due to

5. 5,67,000 permanent disability Loss of future amenities

6. 50,000 and happiness Towards future medical

7. 25,000 expenses Total 15,93,211

16. Thus, the claimant is entitled to

compensation of Rs.15,93,211/- with interest @ 6% p.a.

on the enhanced compensation.

17. Hence, the following:

- 10 -

                       ORDER

i]     Appeal is allowed in part.

ii]    The total compensation awarded by the

       Tribunal   is    modified    and   enhanced   to

Rs.15,93,211/- as against Rs.13,59,211/-

which shall carry interest at the rate of 6%

per annum on the enhanced compensation

from the date of the claim petition till its

realization.

iii] The insurance company shall deposit the re-

assessed total compensation determined as

aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days

from the date of receipt of the certified copy

of the judgment and order.

iv] The portion of the order of the Tribunal

inasmuch as liability and disbursement

remains intact.

- 11 -

v] The modified compensation shall be

disbursed in terms of the order of the

Tribunal.

vi] Draw modified award accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Dvr: