Karnataka High Court
Puttu vs Manjunath Sherigar on 24 May, 2021
Author: Alok Aradhe Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
M.F.A. NO.4183 OF 2018 (MV-I)
C/W
M.F.A. NO.4184 OF 2018 (MV-I)
M.F.A. NO.4183 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
PUTTU
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O SHESHA
R/O HALLIBERU
KOLLUR VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H, ADV.,)
AND:
1. MANJUNATH SHERIGAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O NARAYANA SHERIGAR
R/O VIDHATHRI
KOLLUR VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK-576201.
2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE: KUNDAPURA
2ND FLOOR, SRI SAI CENTRE
2
MAIN ROAD, KUNDAPURA-576201
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANUP SEETHARAM RAO, ADV., FOR
SRI. B.C. SEETHARAM RAO, ADV., FOR R2
V/O DTD:4.12.2019 NOTICE TO R1 D/W)
---
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.02.2018 PASSED
IN MVC NO.1139/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI
(SITTING AT KUNDAPURA), KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
M.F.A. NO.4184 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
RATHNAKARA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O RAGHU
R/O HALLIBERU
KOLLUR VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H, ADV.,)
AND:
1. MANJUNATH SHERIGAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O NARAYANA SHERIGAR
R/O VIDHATHRI
KOLLUR VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK.
2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE: KUNDAPURA
2ND FLOOR, SRI SAI CENTRE
MAIN ROAD, KUNDAPURA
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANUP SEETHARAM RAO, ADV., FOR
SRI. B.C. SEETHARAM RAO, ADV., FOR R2)
---
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.02.2018 PASSED
IN MVC NO.1129/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI
(SITTING AT KUNDAPURA), KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE M.F.As. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON JUDGMENT
M.F.A.No.4183/2018 has been filed by the injured
claimant viz., Puttu, whereas, M.F.A.No.4184/2018 has
been filed by the injured claimant Rathnakara. These
appeals have been filed under Section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act' for short) against the common judgment dated
14.02.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for
short). Since, both the appeals arise out of the same
judgment and from the same accident, they were heard
together and are being decided by this common
judgment.
2. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly
stated are that on 08.04.2016 at about 4.00 p.m. the
claimant Rathnakara was proceeding on his motor cycle
bearing registration No.KA15 Q 2087 along with the
claimant viz., Puttu who was riding the bike as a pillion
rider. When the motor cycle reached near Symon
House, Hosur Village, Kundapura Taluk, a car bearing
registration No.KA 20 Z 8548, which was being driven
by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner
came from the opposite direction and dashed the motor
cycle ridden by the injured claimant Rathnakar. As a
result of the aforesaid accident, the injured claimants
Rathnakar as well as Puttu sustained injuries.
3. The claimant viz., Rathnakar filed a petition
under Section 166 of the Act viz., M.V.C.No.1129/2019
inter alia on the ground that the accident has taken
place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the car. It was further pleaded that the
injured claimant was working as a painter and was
earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. It was also
pleaded that on account of injuries sustained in the
accident, the injured claimant has sustained permanent
disability as well as disfiguration. It was averred that the
injured claimant has incurred a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-
towards medical expenses, attendant, food and
nourishment charges. Accordingly, a sum of
Rs.25,00,000/- along with interest was claimed as
compensation.
4. The claimant viz., Puttu filed a petition under
Section 166 of the Act viz., M.V.C.No.1139/2019 inter
alia on the ground that the accident has taken place
solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the car. It was further pleaded that the injured
claimant was employed as a carpenter and was earning
a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. It was also pleaded
that on account of injuries sustained in the accident, the
injured claimant has sustained permanent disability. It
was averred that the injured claimant has incurred
expenditure towards medical expenses, attendant, food
and nourishment charges. The claimant claimed
compensation to the extent of Rs.25,00,000/- along
with interest.
5. The respondent No.3 did not appear and was
proceeded exparte. Respondent No.2 appeared and filed
the written statement in which inter alia the mode and
manner of the accident was denied. It was further
pleaded that the driver of the car did not have a valid
and effective driving licence. The claim of the claimants
with regard to permanent disability, loss of income, loss
of future earning capacity and loss of future expectation
of life, conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges
was denied.
6. The Claims Tribunal on the basis of the pleading
of the parties, framed the issues and recorded the
evidence. The claimants in order to prove their case
examined themselves and Dr.Nishanth and Dr.Dinakar
Shetty, as PW1 to PW4 and exhibited 13 documents
viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. The respondent-Insurance
Company did not adduce any oral evidence, however,
two documents viz., the insurance policy and copy of
the driving licence viz., Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 were exhibited
on behalf of the Insurance Company. The Claims
Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 14.02.2018
inter alia held that the accident took place on account of
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. It
was further held that the claimant in
M.V.C.No.1129/2019 viz., Rathnakar has sustained
permanent disability to the extent of 10% and assessed
the compensation payable to the claimant in the
aforesaid M.V.C. at Rs.3,32,850/- along with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum. The Tribunal in
M.V.C.No.1139/2016 i.e., the petition filed by the
injured claimant viz., Puttu, held that the injured
claimant has sustained permanent disability to the
extent of 25.5% and that the aforesaid claimant was
held entitled to compensation of Rs.8,45,628/- along
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being
aggrieved, the claimants have filed these appeals
seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.
7. Learned counsel for the claimants in
M.F.A.No.4183/2018 which arises from
M.V.C.No.1139/2016 has invited the attention of this
court to the wound certificate viz., Ex.P3 as well as the
evidence of PW3 viz., Nishanth and has submitted that
the injured claimant has sustained permanent disability
to the extent of 33% and therefore, the tribunal ought
to have held that the injured claimant has sustained
permanent disability to the extent of 33% instead of
25.5%. It is further submitted that the Claims Tribunal
ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- on account
of removal of implants in view of the evidence of
Dr.Nishanth PW3. It is also submitted that the tribunal
ought to have appreciated that the injured claimant is
unable to perform any manual work and therefore, the
disability of the claimant ought to have been assessed at
100%. In support of the aforesaid submission reliance
has been placed on RAMACHANDRAPPA VS.
MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, AIR 2011 SC
2951. It is further submitted that no compensation has
been awarded on account of loss of amenities and future
medical expenses. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the Insurance Company has submitted that the
amount awarded by the tribunal is just and proper and
does not call for any interference.
8. In M.F.A.No.4184/2018, which arises from
M.V.C.No.1129/2016, it has been urged that the tribunal
grossly erred in assessing the monthly income of the
injured claimant at Rs.9,000/- per month and ought to
have assessed the same as per the guidelines framed by
the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. It is
further submitted that since, the claimant is unable to
perform any manual work, therefore, the percentage of
functional disability ought to have been taken at 100%.
It is also submitted that neither any amount has been
award by the Claims Tribunal on account of loss of
amenities nor on account of removal of implants. On the
other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company
submitted that the Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed
the permanent disability at 10% and the amount of
compensation is just and proper and does not call for
any interference.
9. We have considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
record. The common issue arises for consideration in
these appeals is with regard to quantum of
compensation. The Supreme Court in RAJKUMAR VS.
AJAY KUMAR (2011) 1 SCC 313 has held that where
the injuries result in functional disability to the extent of
100%, the loss of earning capacity may be 100%. It is
equally well settled legal proposition that in such cases,
the multiplier system has be adopted to assess the
future loss of income. [See:RESHMA KUMARI & ORS.
VS. MADAN MOHAN & ANR. (2013) 9 SCC 65].
10. Firstly, we deal with the claim of the injured
claimant in M.F.A.No.4183/2018 viz., Puttu. PW3
Dr.Nishanth has not stated in his evidence that the
claimant has sustained functional disability resulting in
100% loss of future earning. From the close scrutiny of
evidence of the aforesaid witness, it can be inferred that
the injured claimant had sustained permanent disability
to the extent of 27%. His age at the time of accident
was 44 years. However, the tribunal on account of an
inadvertent error has treated the same to be 25 years,
which cannot be sustained. Therefore, the age of the
injured claimant is assessed at 44 years, which is
evident from the cause title of the claim petition itself.
The accident had taken place in the year 2016,
therefore, in the absence of any evidenced with regard
to income of the injured claimant, his monthly income
has to be determined as per the guidelines framed by
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which is
assessed at Rs.9,500/- instead of Rs.9,000/-. The
claimant is therefore, held entitled to a sum of
(Rs.9,500x12x27x14/100) i.e., Rs.4,30,920/-. The
tribunal has not awarded any sum on account of loss of
amenities. The claimant is therefore, held entitled to a
sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of loss of amenities and
the amount awarded under the conveyance,
nourishment and attendant charges is enhanced to
Rs.25,000/- from Rs.10,000/-. In addition, the claimant
is held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- instead of
Rs.20,000/- as awarded by the tribunal on account of
future medical expenses. Thus, the claimant is held
entitled to a sum of compensation as follows:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount in Rs.
1. Injury, pain and suffering Rs.1,25,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.2,03,208/-
3. Loss of earning during Rs.11,700/-
treatment
4. Loss of future earning Rs.4,30,920/-
capacity
5. Conveyance, Nourishment Rs.25,000/-
and Attendant Charges
6. Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/-
7. Future medical expenses Rs.30,000/-
Total Rs.8,75,828/-
11. The claimant in M.F.A.No.4184/2018 was also
a carpenter and had not adduced any evidence with
regard to his income and was aged about 22 years at
the time of accident. Therefore, his income has to be
assessed as per the guidelines framed by the Karnataka
State Legal Services Authority. The monthly income of
the claimant is assessed at Rs.9,500/-. Dr.Dinakar
Shetty PW4 has assessed the permanent disability of the
claimant at 10%. The claimant is therefore, held entitled
to a sum of (Rs.9,500x12x10x18/100) i.e.,
Rs.2,05,200/-. The tribunal has not awarded any sum
on account of loss of amenities. Therefore, the claimant
is held entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of
amenities and a sum of Rs.15,000/- on account of
conveyance, attendant and nourishment charges instead
of Rs.8,000/-. A sum of Rs.30,000/- on account of
future medical expenses and a sum of (Rs.9500x4) i.e.,
Rs.38,000/- for loss of earning during treatment period.
The claimant is held entitled to compensation as follows:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount in Rs.
1. Injury, pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.41,754/-
3. Loss of earning during Rs.2,700/-
treatment
4. Loss of income during laid up Rs.38,000/-
period
5. Loss of future earning Rs.2,05,200/-
capacity
6. Conveyance, Nourishment Rs.15,000/-
and Attendant Charges
7. Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/-
8. Future medical expenses Rs.30,000/-
Total Rs.4,33,654/-
Needless to state that the enhanced amount of
compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of filing of the petition till the
payment is made. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment
passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified.
In the result, the appeals are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
ss
