Karnataka High Court
Siddalingaiah vs S A Abdul Khadar on 13 January, 2021
Author: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No. 6733 OF 2012(MV)
BETWEEN:
Siddalingaiah,
S/o late. Siddaiah,
Age 52 years,
Madre Village,
Shanivarsanthe Hobli,
Somvarapete Taluk,
Kodagu District-571236.
Presently R/at
C/o Gangadhara,
Department of Treasuries,
Kote Main road,
Arkalgud taluk,
Hassan District-573102.
... Appellant
(By Sri.M.E.Nagesh., Advocate)
AND:
1. S.A.Abdul Khadar
S/o Abubkar,
Shirangala Village,
Handli Post,
Shanivarasanthe Hobli,
Somwarapete Taluk-571236,
Kodagu District.
2
2. Universal Sompo General Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Divisional Office, K.V.D. Tower,
No.73, II Floor,
Opp. to 100 feet road,
Tarkavent Finance,
Old Madras Road,
Indiranagar, Bangalore-38,
By its Manager.
... Respondents
(By Sri.Ravi S Samprathi, Advocate for R2:
R1 served & Unrepresented)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:01.03.2012
passed in MVC No.27/2011 (609/2011) on the file of
Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Arkalgud, partly allowing the
claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement
of compensation.
This MFA, coming on for hearing, this day, this
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 01.03.2012 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Arkalgud in
MVC No.27/2011.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 15.02.2011 at about 7.00
p.m., the claimant was standing near Sri Rameshwara
Temple of his village. At that time the driver of the
lorry bearing registration No.KA-12/A-352 parked the
said lorry by the side of the temple in which granite
supplied for temple. Suddenly the driver of the said
lorry drove the same in a reverse direction at a high
sped and 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 working as a
coolie and was earning Rs.6,000/- 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 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. The age,
avocation and income of the claimant and the medical
expenses are denied. It was pleaded by respondent
No.1 that the offending vehicle was insured with
respondent No.2 and the policy was in force as on the
date of the accident. It was further pleaded that the
driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and
effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle as on
the date of the accident.
It was pleaded by respondent No.2 that the
insurance policy is subject to terms and conditions. It
was further pleaded that the driver of the offending
vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving
licence as on the date of the accident. It was further
pleaded that the petition is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties as the driver of the offending
vehicle was not made as party. It was further pleaded
that there is one day delay in filing the complaint.
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 and Dr.Sriranga N. as PW-2 and
got exhibited 8 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. On
behalf of the respondents, they have neither
examined any witnesses nor got 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.1,55,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant has
raised the following contentions:
Firstly, at the time of the accident the claimant
was aged about 52 years, he suffered grievous
injuries. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of
the claimant as Rs.3,000/- which is on the lower side.
Secondly, he examined the doctor as PW-2 who
deposed that the claimant requires Rs.40,000/- for
future medical expenses. The compensation granted
by the Tribunal under the head 'future medical
expenses' is on the lower side.
Thirdly, he has examined the doctor who has
assessed 24% permanent partial disability of left
lower limb and 17% of the right lower limb and he has
to suffer the disability throughout his life. The
compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head
'loss of amenities' is on the lower side. Hence, he
sought for allowing the appeal.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance
company has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, the claimant has not produced any
document to establish his income, the Tribunal has
rightly assessed the notional income as Rs.3,000/-
per month.
Secondly, even though the doctor has assessed
the disability of 24% permanent partial physical
disability of left lower limb and 17% of the right lower
limb, the Tribunal considering the evidence of the
doctor and the materials on record has rightly
assessed the whole body disability at 15%.
Thirdly, 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.
Perused the original records. Judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant
suffered injuries in the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its
driver.
The claimant has suffered the following injuries:
(1) Pain and swelling of left ankle.
(2) Abnormal mobility and tenderness lower
end of left femur.
(3) Sutured wound over right knee.
(4) Tenderness and swelling upper 1/3rfd right
leg.
The Tribunal considering the evidence of the
doctor and the materials available on record has
rightly assessed the whole body disability at 15%.
The claimant has not produced any evidence with
regard to his income. 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.
The claimant is aged about 52 years at the time of the
accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is
'11'. Thus, the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,28,700/-
(Rs.6,500*12*11*15%) on account of 'loss of future
income'.
Since the income of the claimant is enhanced to
Rs.6,500/- per month, the claimant is entitled for
compensation of Rs.13,000/- (Rs.6,500*2 months)
under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.
The doctor deposed that the claimant requires
Rs.40,000/- for future medical expenses. Taking into
consideration the evidence of the doctor and the
injuries suffered by the claimant, considering Ex.P6 -
wound certificate, I am of the opinion that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal for 'future
medical expesnes' has to be enhanced from
Rs.10,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.
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 25,000 25,000
Medical expenses 35,000 35,000
Attendant charges 5,000 5,000
Loss of income during 6,000 13,500
laid up period
Loss of amenities 15,000 15,000
Loss of future income 59,400 1,28,700
Future medical expenses 10,000 40,000
Total 1,55,400 2,62,200
The claimant is entitled to a total compensation
of Rs.2,62,200/-. 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 four 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.
Office is directed to send back the original
records, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Cm/-
