Sri. Abhishek Bhonsle vs Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,
2021 Latest Caselaw 488 Kant

                        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.1273 OF 2016(MV)

BETWEEN:

SRI.ABHISHEK BHONSLE
S/O ANAND RAO BHONSLE
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT NO.31, 8TH MAIN
9TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-41.
                                     ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI.M.H.PRAKASH, ADV. )

AND

1.    RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO.LTD.,
      NO.3, MANANDI PLAZA
      ST MARKS ROAD, BANGALORE-01.

2.    SRI. SUBRAMANYA K.R.
      S/O RANGANNA K.,
      NO.478, 40TH CROSS
      5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
      BANGALORE-41.
                                 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.S.LINGARAJ, ADV. FOR R1:
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
                             2




    THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:30.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.6094/2012
ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE
JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 30.7.2015 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 29.7.2012, the claimants

along with others was proceeding in a swift car

bearing registration No.KA-05-MH-4406 from

Bangalore-Mysore Road near Thurahalli Forest

Vajrahalli, Kengeri, at that time, the driver of the said

car drove the same at a high speed and in a rash and

negligent manner, dashed to the road side tree. 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 working as

driver cum owner of driving school and was earning

Rs.25,000/- p.m. 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 car by its driver.

4. On service of notice, 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.

The driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid

driving licence as on the date 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. The respondent No.1 appeared through

counsel and did not chose to file written statement.

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.Ramachandra.S as PW-4

and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P23.

On behalf of the respondents, neither any witness was

examined nor any document was produced. The

Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia,

held that the accident took place on account of rash

and negligent driving of the car 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.1,85,000/- along with interest at

the rate of 8% 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

he was working as driver cum owner of driving school

and was earning Rs.25,000/- p.m., but the Tribunal

has taken the notional income as merely as

Rs.7,000/- per month.

Secondly, PW-4, the doctor has stated in his

evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of

10% to whole body. Due to the said disability, the

claimant is not able to continue his regular work.

There is loss of income due to disability. But the

Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the

head of 'loss of future income'.

Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as

inpatient for a period of 4 days. Even after discharge

from the hospital, he was not in a position to

discharge his regular work. He 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 he was earning

Rs.25,000/- per month, he has not produced any

documents to establish his income. Therefore, the

Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the

claimant notionally.

Secondly, the injuries sustained by the claimant

are minor in nature. The claimant has failed to

establish that due to the disability suffered by him, he

has discontinued doing car business. Hence, the

Tribunal has rightly not granted any compensation

under the head of 'loss of future income'.

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.

As per wound certificate, the claimant has

sustained right per implant fracture radius. PW-4, the

doctor has stated that the claimant has suffered whole

body disability at 10%. The claimant has failed to

establish that due to the disability suffered by him, he

has discontinued doing car business. There is no loss

of income. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly not granted

any compensation under the head of 'loss of future

income'.

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered

grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He 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.20,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and under the head of

'pain and sufferings' from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.60,000/-.

The compensation awarded b y 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 40,000 60,000 Medical expenses 100,000 100,000 Food, nourishment, 10,000 10,000 conveyance and attendant charges Loss of income during 15,000 15,000 laid up period Loss of amenities 20,000 40,000 Total 185,000 225,000

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation

of Rs.2,25,000/-.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the compensation amount along with interest at 8%

p.a. 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

DM