Karnataka High Court
Govindegowda @ Govinda vs The Branch Manager on 8 January, 2021
Author: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.7980 OF 2013(MV)
BETWEEN:
GOVINDEGOWDA @ GOVINDA
S/O LATE MANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/O YAREHALLY VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI
HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT-573201.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADV. )
AND
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER
RELIANCE INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, KRUTHIKA ARCADE
N.R.CIRCLE, H.N.PURA ROAD
HASSAN-573201.
2. K.H. PARAMESHWARA
AGED BOUT 35 YEARS
JAI HANUMAN NILAYA
INDIRA NAGAR,
SATHYAMANGALA LAYOUT
ARASIKERE ROAD
2
HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT-573201.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.S.LINGARAJ, ADV. FOR R1:
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED:12.2.2014.)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED: 18.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1457/2012
ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACK COURT-1, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSTION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
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 18.04.2013 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 13.06.2012 at about 11.40
a.m., the claimant was proceeding by walk on the left
side of the road, opposite to picture of palace,
Sanman Hotel road, Hassan, at that time, lorry
bearing registration No.KA-13/A-9565 being driven by
its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent
manner came from hind portion, 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 on the ground that he was aged about
30 years, was an agriculturist and was earning
Rs.15,000/- 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, respondent No.2
appeared through its counsel and filed written
statement in which the averments made in the
petition were denied. It was further pleaded that
there is no permit to ply on the road. Hence, he
sought for dismissal of the petition.
The respondent No.1 did not appear before the
Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed
ex-parte.
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.Ullasa Shetty as PW-2 and
got exhibited 9 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. In
the meanwhile, 3 documents were got marked
through Court Commissioner as Exs.C1 to 3. On
behalf of the respondents, neither examined any
witness nor marked any documents. 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.1,84,000./- 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, at the time of accident the claimant was
earning Rs.10,000/- per month, the Tribunal is not
justified in taking monthly income of the claimant as
Rs.4,000/-.
Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor,
who has assessed 30% disability to the right lower
limb, the Tribunal has wrongly assessed whole body
disability at 7%. Due to the accident the claimant has
suffered injuries and he has taken treatment as
inpatient. He has suffered lot of pain during
treatment and he has to suffer with the disability and
unhappiness throughout his life. The compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and
sufferings' is on the lower side. The Tribunal has not
granted any compensation under the head of 'loss of
amenities'.
Secondly, claimant has produced medical bills to
the extent of Rs.1,68,165/-, the Tribunal has granted
only Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of 'medical
expenses', which 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 the following
contentions.
Firstly, even though the doctor has assessed
disability at 30% to right lower limb, it is only in
respect to the particular limb. The whole body
disability assessed by the Tribunal at 7% is just and
reasonable.
Secondly, even though the claimant has claimed
that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but he
has not produced any documents to establish the
same. The Tribunal has rightly taken Rs.4,000/- per
month as notional income.
Thirdly, even though claimant has produced
medical bills to the extent of Rs.1,68,165/-, but
according to medical certificate, he has sustained only
one crush to his right foot. Taking into consideration
disability, the Tribunal has rightly granted
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of
'medical expenses'. The overall compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that claimant has
suffered injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on
13.06.2012 due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver. Due to accident
claimant has suffered crush injury.
He has examined Dr.Ullasa Shetty as PW.2. In
his testimony, he has deposed that claimant has
suffered 30% to the right lower limb. Taking into
consideration the evidence of doctor and considering
age and avocation of claimant and wound certificate-
Ex.P7, I am of the opinion that whole body disability
can be assessed at 10%.
At the time of accident, claimant was earning
Rs.10,000/- by doing coolie work, but he has not
produced any documents to establish the same.
Under these circumstances, 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 2012, the
notional income has to be taken at Rs.7,000/- p.m.
At the time of accident, claimant was aged about
30 years and multiplier applicable to the said age
group is 17. Thus, claimant is entitled for
compensation of Rs.1,42,800/- (Rs.7,000* 12*17*
10%) on account of 'loss of future income'.
Since the monthly income has been enhanced,
claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.7,000/-
instead of Rs.5,000/- under the head of 'loss of
income during laid up period'.
Due to accident claimant has suffered lot of pain
during treatment. He has examined doctor, who has
assessed disability at 30% to the right lower limb and
he has to suffer with the disability and unhappiness
throughout his life. Taking into consideration the
evidence of doctor and wound certificate-Ex.P7, I am
of the opinion that the sum awarded under the head
of 'pain and sufferings' has to be enhanced from
Rs.15,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. The claimant is also
entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the
head of 'loss of amenities'.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under other heads is just and reasonable.
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 15,000 25,000
Medical expenses 1,00,000 1,00,000
Attendant charges 5,000 5,000
Nutritious food 5,000 5,000
Loss of income during 5,000 7,000
laid up period
Loss of amenities - 30,000
Loss of future income 54,000 1,42,800
Total 1,84,000 3,14,800
The claimant is entitled to a total compensation
of Rs.3,14,800/-.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of 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/-
