Karnataka High Court
Sri R Manohar Babu vs Khizar Ahmed N on 4 January, 2021
Author: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
M.F.A.No.6588 OF 2010(MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI. R. MANOHAR BABU,
S/O LATE. RAMACHANDRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/A NO.1499, 26TH A MAIN,
26TH CROSS, H.S.R. LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-34.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. T.V.SATISH, ADV.)
AND:
1. KHIZAR AHMED N.,
NO.16, 1ST MAIN SARJAPUR,
AGARA MAIN ROAD,
JAKKASANDRA EXTN.,
KORAMANGALA, 1ST BLOCK, BANGALORE-34.
2. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
NO.16, BEELANDUR, SARJAPUR,
MARATH HALLI, OUTER RING ROAD,
BANGALORE-37.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.MALLIKARJUNAPPA, ADV. FOR R1:
SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADV. FOR R2)
2
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER 173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.10.2009
PASSED IN MVC NO.8855/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE IX
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER MACT, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THIS COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the judgment
and award dated 03.10.2009 passed by the MACT, Court of
Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-7) in MVC No.8855/2007.
2. Brief facts of the case:
On 24.09.2007 at about 3.00 p.m., when the
claimant was proceeding as pedestrian in front of his
house bearing No.1499, 26th 'A' Main, 26th Cross, Sector-
II, H.S.R Layout, Bangalore, at that time, all of a sudden
the maruthi car bearing Registration No.KA.01/MB-4277
being driven by its driver came at a high speed and in a
rash and negligent manner, dashed to the claimant. As a
result, he sustained injuries and immediately he was
shifted to the hospital. After recovering from the injuries,
the claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal.
3. On service of notice, the respondents appeared
through their counsel and respondent No.2 only filed
written statement in which the averments made in the
petition were denied. It was further pleaded that the
accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and it was due
to negligent act of the claimant himself. It was further
pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not
holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of
accident. The age, occupation and income of the claimant
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.
4. In order to prove his case, the claimant has
examined himself as PW-1, and Dr.Sunilkumar K.S. as PW-
2 and got marked 16 documents. On the other hand, the
Insurance Company neither examined any witness nor
marked any documents on their behalf. After appreciation
of the evidence, the Tribunal granted compensation of
Rs.61,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. and directed the
insurance company to pay the compensation. Being not
satisfied with the same, this appeal is filed seeking
enhancement of compensation.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised
the following contentions.
Firstly, at the time of the accident, the claimant was
aged about 32 years and was earning Rs.8,000/- per
month. Due to the accident, he has suffered grievous
injuries. He has examined the doctor as PW.2, who has
assessed 20% disability to the limb and whole body
disability at 7%. The Tribunal has failed to grant any
compensation under the head of 'loss of future income due
to disability'.
Secondly, he has contended that due to the accident,
the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and he was
inpatient for a period of 3 days. He has suffered lot of pain
during the treatment and he has to suffer with the
disability and unhappiness throughout his life. The
compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of
'pain and agony' and 'loss of amenities' are on the lower
side. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent - Insurance Company has raised the following
contentions.
Firstly, even though the doctor has assessed whole
body disability at 7% the claimant in his evidence has
admitted that he has continued his work and therefore,
there is no loss of income. He was inpatient only for 3
days. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly not granted any
compensation under the above said head.
Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are
minor in nature.
Thirdly, even though the claimant has claimed that
he was earning Rs.8,000/- per month, but he has not
produced any documents to establish the same. The
compensation awarded by the Tribunal on all other heads
are just and reasonable. Hence, he sought for dismissal of
the appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgment and award of the claims Tribunal
and original records.
8. It is not in dispute that the claimant has suffered
injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 24.09.2007
due to the rash and negligent driving of the maruthi car
bearing registration No.KA-01/MB-4277. Due to the
accident, the claimant has suffered the following injuries.
1. Fracture base of left 5th metatarsal,
2. Lacerated wound over left foot and
3. Severe injuries to hands and head.
The claimant has examined Dr.Sunilkumar as PW.2.
In his testimony, PW.2 has deposed that the claimant has
sustained disability at 20% to the limb and whole body
disability at 7%. The claimant in his evidence, has
deposed that due to the disability there is future loss of
income. Therefore, taking into consideration the
depositions of the doctor, PW-2 and claimant, PW.1 and
injuries mentioned in the wound certificate-Ex.P8, the
whole body disability is taken at 7%. The claimant is aged
about 32 years at the time of the accident and multiplier
applicable to his age group is '16'.
9. Even though the claimant has claimed that he
was earning Rs.8,000/- per month, but he has not
produced any documents to establish the same. To assess
the notional income, as per the circular issued by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident
of the year 2007, the income should be taken notionally as
Rs.4,000/- per month. Accordingly, monthly income of the
claimant is considered as Rs.4,000/- per month.
Accordingly, loss of future earnings is calculated as
follows:
Rs.4,000 x 12 x 16 x 7/100 = Rs.53,760/-.
Since the income of the claimant is enhanced to
Rs.4,000/- per month, the claimant is entitled for
compensation of Rs.8,000/- (Rs.4,000*2 months) under
the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.
10. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered
above said injuries. He has examined the doctor as PW.2,
who has assessed disability at 20% to the limb and whole
body disability at 7%. He has suffered lot of pain during
the treatment and he has to suffer with the disability
throughout his life. Taking into consideration the
deposition of the doctor, I am inclined to enhance the
compensation for 'loss of amenities' from Rs.10,000/- to
Rs.20,000/-.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under
the other heads are just and reasonable.
11. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following
compensation:
As awarded As awarded
Compensation under by the by this
different Categories Tribunal Court
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Pain and agony 20,000 20,000
Medical expenses 20,000 20,000
Loss of future earnings - 53,760
due to disability
Loss of earning during laid 6,000 8,000
up period
Loss of amenities and 10,000 20,000
future unhappiness
Conveyance & 5,000 5,000
nourishment expenses
Total 61,000 1,26,760
The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.1,26,760/-.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
entire compensation amount, along with an interest @ 6%
per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till
the date of realization, within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this
judgment.
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims
Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Mkm/-
