Karnataka High Court
Shivanna S/O Chikkanna vs Rajanna S/O Gangamallappa 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.8882 OF 2012(MV)
BETWEEN:
Shivanna S/o Chikkanna,
Aged about 41 years,
Agriculturist,
Resident of Katihally Village,
Hosadurga Taluk,
Chitradurga District.
... Appellant
(By Sri.N.K.Siddeshwara, Advocate)
AND:
1. Rajanna S/o Gangamallappa,
Major,
Resident of Mahalakshmi Extension,
Chikkanayakanahalli Town & Taluk,
Tumkur District.
2. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Maganur Complex, 2nd Floor,
Near APMC Road, B.D.Road,
Chitradurga City,
Represented by its Branch Manager.
... Respondents
(By Sri.D.Vijaya Kumar, Advocate for R2:
R1 served and unrepresented )
2
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:01.06.2012 passed
in MVC No.143/2011 on the file of itinerary Senior Civil
Judge & MACT, Hosadurga, dismissing the claim petition
for compensation.
This MFA, coming on for hearing, 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 01.06.2012 passed by the
Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Hosadurga in
MVC No.143/2011.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on
24.01.2011 at about 12.30 p.m. the claimant was
proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-16/L-4547. When he reached near Katihatti
cross, the driver of the bus bearing registration
No.KA-06/A-9159 came at a high speed and in a rash
and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle
and caused accident. As a result, he sustained injuries
and immediately he was shifted to the hospital.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section
166 of the Act on the ground that he was doing
agriculture work and was earning Rs.10,000/- per
month. It was pleaded that he 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 Nos.1
and 2 filed separate written statements in which the
averments made in the petition were denied. It was
pleaded by respondent No.1 that the offending vehicle
was insured with respondent No.2.
It was pleaded by respondent No.2 that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the claimant himself. It was further pleaded that the
liability, if any, is depending on the validity of RC, FC
and permit of the bus and DL of the driver. 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, they 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, Dr.Suma, Dentist as PW-2 and
Dr.S.M.Sridhar as PW-3 and got marked documents
as Exs.P1 to P99 and Ex.C1. On the other hand, the
respondents have not examined any witnesses but got
marked one document as Ex.R1. After appreciation of
the evidence, the Tribunal held that the injuries
suffered are due to the claimant's own rash and
negligent act in riding the motorcycle and dismissed
the claim petition. Being aggrieved, the claimant has
filed this appeal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the
claimant has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the bus, but the
Tribunal has wrongly given a finding that the accident
has occurred due to the negligence of the claimant.
Secondly, the claimant was riding the motorcycle
on the left side of the road after following the traffic
rules, the bus came from the opposite direction and
dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant, as a
result of which the claimant fell down and sustained
grievous injuries. But the Tribunal has given a wrong
finding that the rider of the motorcycle negligently hit
the hind portion of the bus. This finding is contrary
to the materials available on record.
Thirdly, at the time of the accident the claimant
was doing agriculture work and was earning
Rs.10,000/- per month and due to the injuries he was
unable to do the work. Hence, he sought for allowing
the appeal and seeking compensation.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing
for the Insurance Company has raised the following
counter-contentions:
Firstly, the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle, without
following the traffic rules he hit the bus from back side
and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of
the bus. The Tribunal after considering the evidence
of the parties has rightly held that the accident has
occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the
rider of the motorcycle.
Secondly, even though the claimant claims that
he was an agriculturist and was earning Rs.10,000/-
per month, he has not produced any document to
establish the same.
Thirdly, the Tribunal after considering the
materials available on record has rightly dismissed the
claim petition. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the
appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Perused the original records, judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal.
9. It is the case of the claimant that on
24.01.2011 he was proceeding on his motorcycle.
When he reached near Katihatti cross, the driver of
the bus came from the opposite direction and dashed
against the motorcycle of the claimant and the
claimant fell down and sustained injuries. To establish
his claim he examined himself as PW-1. Immediately
after the accident the police have registered FIR as
per Ex.P2. On going through the evidence of the
parties and by verifying the IMV report and the
damages caused to the vehicles, it is clear that the
bus was moving ahead of the motorcycle, the driver of
the bus, without giving any signal immediately
stopped the bus, due to which the rider of the
motorcycle hit backside of the bus and the accident
occurred. It is clear that the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus.
Re.quantum:
10. Even though the claimant has claimed that
he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing
agriculture he has not produced any material to
establish the same. 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 2011, the
notional income has to be taken at Rs.6,500/- p.m.
Taking into consideration the injuries suffered by
the claimant and the wound certificate at Ex.P4, the
claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.25,000/-
under the head 'pain and suffering.
Considering the deposition of the doctor and the
disability certificates at Exs.P88 and P89, the claimant
is entitled for Rs.20,000/- under the head 'disability
and injury'.
Since the claimant was inpatient for a period of
20 days the claimant is entitled for Rs.10,000/- under
the head 'food and nourishment, etc.', Rs.10,000/-
under the head 'medical expenses' and Rs.10,000/-
under the head 'loss of income during the laid up
period'.
The claimant has to suffer the disability and
unhappiness throughout his life. Hence, he is entitled
to Rs.15,000/- under the head 'loss of amenities'.
11. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the
following compensation:
(Rs.)
Compensation under
different Heads
Pain and sufferings 25,000
Medical expenses 10,000
Food & nourishment 10,000
etc.
Loss of income during 10,000
laid up period
Loss of amenities 15,000
Disability and injury 20,000
Total 90,000
The claimant is entitled to a total compensation
of Rs.90,000/-. 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 six weeks 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
Cm/-
