Karnataka High Court
H Mahadevappa vs Santhosh B D 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.2322 OF 2017(MV)
BETWEEN:
H.Mahadevappa,
S/o Bsavarajappa,
39 years,
R/o Yarabalu Village,
Harpanahalli Taluk,
Davanagere Dist. ... Appellant
(By Smt. Saritha Kulkarni, Advocate)
AND:
1. Santhosh B.D.,
Basavanagouda B.D.,
Age Major,
R/o No.46/A, Nittur Village,
Harpanahalli Taluk,
Davanagere District-577001.
2. Chandrashekhar K H.,
S/o Kotrappa K.H.,
R/o No.34, Nittur Village,
Harpanahalli Taluk,
Davanagere District-577001.
3. The Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company,
Near Dr. Nirmala Kesari's House,
2
P.J. Extension,
Davanagere-2. ... Respondents
(By Sri.B.Pradeep, Advocate for R3:
Notice to R1 & R2 is dispensed with)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:14.08.2015 passed
in MVC No.37/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,
MACT-IX, Harapanahalli, partly allowing the claim petition
for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
This MFA, coming on for orders, video conference,
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 14.08.2015 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Harapanahalli
in MVC No.37/2013.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 12.02.2013 at about 11.15
a.m., the claimant was proceeding in motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-17/L-4537 from
Chirasthahalli to Telgi village. At that time, the driver
of the trax bearing registration No.KA-17/B-5641
drove the vehicle at a high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle. 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
barber and also doing tea powder business and was
earning Rs.10,000/- 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
to 3 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 accident occurred not due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the offending
vehicle. It was further pleaded that the driver of the
offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective
driving licence to drive the said vehicle and the vehicle
was insured with the respondent No.3 and the policy
was valid as on the date of the accident and he is not
liable to pay the compensation.
It was pleaded by respondent No.2 that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the rider of the motorcycle. It was further
pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was
holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive
the said vehicle and the vehicle was insured with the
respondent No.3 and the policy was valid as on the
date of the accident and he is not liable to pay the
compensation.
It was pleaded by respondent No.3 that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding
of the rider of the motorcycle. It was further pleaded
that the rider of the motorcycle was not holding a
valid and effective driving licence to drive the said
vehicle. It was further pleaded that the driver of the
offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective
driving licence to drive the said vehicle. 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 and Dr.Nagabhushana D.M. as PW-
2 and got exhibited 21 documents namely Ex.P1 to
Ex.P2. On behalf of the respondents, they have not
examined any witnesses but got marked 1 document
namely Ex.R1. 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.3,11,200/- along with interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant raised
the following contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant claims that at
the time of the accident he was earning Rs.10,000/-
per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional
income as only Rs.6,000/- per month.
Secondly, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal on all the heads are on the lower side.
Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
insurance company has raised the following
contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant has claimed
that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, he has
not produced any documents to establish the same.
Secondly, the Tribunal after considering the
evidence of the parties and the materials on record
has granted just and reasonable compensation.
Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Perused the judgment and award.
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant
suffered injuries in the accident that occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by
its driver.
Due to the accident the claimant suffered the
following injuries:
(1) Fracture of both bones of right leg.
(2) Fracture of shaft of right femur.
The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence of the
doctor 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 2013, the notional income has to be taken at
Rs.8,000/- p.m.
The claimant was aged about 35 years at the
time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his
age group is '16'. Thus, the claimant is entitled to
Rs.2,30,400/- (Rs.8,000*12*16*15%) on account of
'loss of future income'.
Since the income of the claimant is enhanced to
Rs.8,000/- per month and the claimant was inpatient
for more than 20 days, the claimant requires rest for 3
months and is entitled for compensation of
Rs.24,000/- (Rs.8,000*3 months) under the head
'loss of income during laid up period'.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under other heads are 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 40,000
Medical expenses 58,400 58,400
Attendant charges 5,000 5,000
Loss of income during - 24,000
laid up period
Loss of amenities 10,000 10,000
Loss of future income 1,72,800 2,30,400
Future medical expenses 25,000 25,000
Total 3,11,200 3,92,800
The claimant is entitled to a total compensation
of Rs.3,92,800/-. The Insurance Company is directed
to deposit the compensation amount along with
interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
payment is made (excluding the delayed period of 441
days), 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
Cm/-
