K.M.Vinay Kumar vs Ramya Bhat
2021 Latest Caselaw 2192 Kant

                           1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

                       PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                         AND

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

             M.F.A. NO.2641 OF 2020 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

K.M.VINAY KUMAR
S/O.SHRI GANAPATHI BHAT
HINDU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.292
10TH MAIN, 10TH CROSS
N.G.E.F LAYOUT, NAGARBHAVI
BENGALURU - 560 072
                                         ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.PRASHANTH CHANDRA S.N ADV.)

AND:

1.     RAMYA BHAT
       W/O.SHRI GANAPATHI BHAT
       MAJOR
       RESIDING AT NO.292
       10TH MAIN, 10TH CROSS
       N.G.E.F LAYOUT, NAGARBHAVI
       BENGALURU - 560 072

2.     ICICI LOMBARD MOTOR INSURANCE
       COMPANY LIMITED
       ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE
       414 VEER SAVARKAR MARG
                                2



      NEAR SIDHI VINAYAKA TEMPLE
      PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI - 400 025
      REPRESENTED BY IT MANAGER
                                    ... RESPONDENTS
(R-1 & R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
                        ---

      THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.12.2019,
PASSED IN MVC NO.1398/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER,
MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-4), PARTLY ALLOWING THE     CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.

     THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., 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 appellant against the judgment dated

04.12.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly

stated are that the injured claimant was traveling as a

passenger in Maruti Suzuki Swift car bearing registration

No.KA-05 MG-8175 from Sringeri to Bengaluru on

24.08.2014 at 4.30 p.m. When the said car reached near

Thoranamavu Village, Chikmagalur, the driver of the car

drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed

against a tree. As a result of the accident, the claimant

sustained grievous injuries all over his body and was shifted

to the hospital and treated.

3. The claimant thereupon filed a petition under

Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground

that the accident took place solely on account of rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the car. It was further

pleaded that the claimant, at the time of accident, was aged

about 18 years and was a student of B.E. Architecture. It

was further pleaded that on account of the injuries sustained

in the accident, the claimant sustained permanent disability

and is bed ridden. Accordingly, the claimant claimed

compensation to the extent of Rs.2,00,00,000/- along with

interest.

4. Respondent No.1 did not appear and was proceeded

exparte. The respondent No.2 filed written statement in

which the averments made in the claim petition were denied.

However, it was admitted that the Insurance Company had

issued the policy in respect of the vehicle in question and the

same was valid as on the date of accident. It was also

pleaded that the driver did not have a valid and effective

driving licence. The age, injuries as well as the manner of

accident was also denied and it was pleaded that the claim of

compensation is highly excessive and exorbitant.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded

the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined himself as PW-1

and one Dr.Maheshwarappa B.M. as PW-2 and got exhibited

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P36. The respondents

examined 9 witness namely S.Shekar as RW-1, S.Mohan Raj

as RW-2, Sunil Kumar C as RW-3, Prakash B.K. as RW-4,

Mahitha Bhat as RW-5, Santhosh Shetty as RW-6, Gopal

Eknath Relkar as RW-7, Nivrtee Raosaheb Magar as RW-8

and S.Pruthvi as RW-9 and got marked documents Ex.R1 to

Ex.R5. 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. It was

further held that the claimant is entitled to compensation to

the tune of Rs.46,23,000/- along with interest at the rate of

6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been

filed.

6. Learned counsel for the claimant, while inviting the

attention of this Court to the evidence of Dr.Maheshwarappa

B.M. PW-2, submitted that the aforesaid witness has stated

in his evidence that the appellant has sustained 90%

permanent disability. However, the Tribunal erred in

assessing the same at 80%. It is also submitted that the

Tribunal has awarded a paltry sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on

account of attendant charges and the sum awarded on

account of pain and suffering also deserves to be enhanced.

7. We have considered the submissions made by

learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the

record. The only question which arises for our consideration

in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the claimant

was aged 18 years. From perusal of the evidence of PW-2

Dr.Maheshwarappa B.M., it is evident that the claimant has

sustained permanent disability at 90%. However, the

Tribunal has assessed the same at 80%. Therefore, the

disability sustained by the appellant has to be assessed at

90%. From the evidence of PW-2, it is evident that the

appellant is suffering from quadriplegia. Therefore, the

appellant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.19,44,000/-

(Rs.10,000/- x 12 x 18 x 90%) under the head of loss of

future income instead of Rs.17,28,000/-.

8. From the evidence on record, it is axiomatic that the

appellant is bed ridden and is unable to perform his day-to-

day activities. Therefore, the appellant is required to employ

an attendant and even if a sum of Rs.3,000/- p.m. is

required to be paid to the attendant, the appellant is held

entitled to a sum of Rs.6,48,000/- (Rs.3000 x 12 x 18) on

account of attendant charges instead of Rs.2,00,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal.

Thus, the total amount of compensation is enhanced by

Rs.6,64,000/-.

The aforesaid enhanced compensation shall carry

interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the

petition till the realization of the amount of compensation.

To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the

Claims Tribunal is modified.

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV