Sri Pakruddin @ Babu Pakruddin vs The United India Insurance Co Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 3665 Kant

                          1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

                       BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

            M.F.A No.8639 OF 2019(MV)

BETWEEN:

SRI. PAKRUDDIN @ BABU PAKRUDDIN
S/O LATE AMEER JAN
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

R/O NEW MASJID, AMARAPURAM
ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT - 515 281
ANDHARA PRADESH

NOW R/AT C/O SATTAR SAB
MEHABOOB NAGARA
SIRA TOWN - 572 137
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
                                         ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       1ST FLOOR, RAJA COMPLEX
       DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
       SIRA TOWN
       TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 137.
       REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
                            2



2.   SRI. SYED JAVEED ALI
     S/O SYED MUNEER
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
     R/O MEHABOOB NAGAR, SIRA TOWN
     TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 137. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1
     V/O DATED:10.012020 NOTICE TO R2 D/W)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
25.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.846/2017 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AND ADDITIONAL
MACT, SIRA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.


     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 25/10/2018 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sira.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 11/04/2017 at about 12.30

p.m., the claimant was proceeding on his Bajaj

Kawasaki motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-

03/EJ-3882 along with a pillion rider on Tumakuru -

Sira Old NH-4 road from Tumakuru to Sira and when

they reached in front of Nataraja Rice Mill, Sira Town,

at that time, a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-64/E-

0746 being ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent

manner and dashed to the vehicle of 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 seeking compensation. It was pleaded

that he spent huge amount towards medical

expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded

that the accident occurred purely on account of the

rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by

its rider.

4. On service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and

2 appeared through their respective counsel and filed

separate written statement.

Respondent No.1, in his written statement

denied the averments made in the claim petition. It

was pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured

with respondent No.2 and sought for dismissal of the

claim petition.

Respondent No.2, in its written statement denied

the averments made in the petition. It was pleaded

that the accident was not occurred due to rash and

negligent riding of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-64-

E-0746 and it was due to fault of the rider of

motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-03/EJ-3882 i.e.

claimant. It was further pleaded that 1st respondent

has violated terms and conditions of the policy as well

as provisions of M.V.Act. Further it denied the

manner in which the accident had occurred, nature of

injuries, treatment obtained and money spent by the

claimant towards medical expenses. Hence, he 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-2 and another witness as PW.1 and

got exhibited 16 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P16.

On the other hand, official of respondent No.2 has

been examined as RW-1 and got exhibited 6

documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R6. The Claims

Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held

that the accident took place on account of rash and

negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider, as

a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The

Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a

compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- along with interest at

the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the insurance

company to deposit the compensation amount along

with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been

filed.

6. Sri V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for

the claimant has contended that at the time of

accident, the claimant was aged about 40 years, he

was working as a driver and was earning Rs.15,000/-

per month. Further he has contended that due to the

accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries

and has taken treatment as inpatient for a period of

23 days and also has taken treatment as outpatient

even after discharge from the Hospital and he has

suffered lot of pain during treatment. But the Tribunal

has failed to grant any compensation towards 'pain

and suffering' and 'loss of amenities'.

Secondly, he has contended that since the

claimant was a driver by profession, due to the

accident he is unable to discharge his duties. But the

Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards

'loss of income during laid up period'. Hence, he

sought for enhancement of compensation.

7. Per contra, Sri Ravish Benni, learned

counsel for the insurance company has contended that

even though the claimant claims that he was earning

Rs.15,000/- per month as a driver, but he has not

produced any documents to establish his income.

Secondly, he has contended that since the

injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature,

it would not affect the avocation of the claimant and

moreover, the claimant has not produced any

documents to show that due to the disability he was

unable to discharge his work. Therefore, the Tribunal

after considering the materials available on record has

rightly not granted any compensation towards 'loss of

income during laid up period'.

Thirdly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are

minor in nature, he has taken treatment as inpatient

only for a period of 23 days and he has not examined

the doctor. Therefore, 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 judgment and award.

9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has

suffered injuries in the road traffic accident occurred

on 11/04/2017 due to rash and negligent riding of the

motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-64/E-0746 by its rider.

As per Wound Certificate-Ex.P9, the claimant has

sustained the following injuries.

1) Fracture of nasal bridge;

2) Fracture of bilateral zygomatic maxillary arch;

3) Fracture of right parasymphysis.

The claimant has not examined the Doctor and

he has not produced any disability certificate to show

that due to the accident he has suffered any disability.

Therefore, the Tribunal, considering the same has

rightly not granted any compensation towards 'loss of

income due to disability.

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered

above said injuries, he has taken treatment as

inpatient for a period of 23 days and he has suffered

lot of pain during treatment. Considering the age and

avocation of the claimant and considering the injuries

suffered by the claimant, I am of the opinion that the

claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.30,000/-

towards 'pain and suffering' and Rs.30,000/- towards

'loss of amenities'.

Even though the claimant claims that he was

working as a driver in Elegant School International,

Bengaluru and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month,

but he has not produced any documents to establish

his income. Under the circumstances, 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 2017, the notional income has to be taken at

Rs.11,000/- p.m. The claimant was treated as

inpatient for a period 23 days and also has taken

treatment as outpatient even after discharge from the

hospital. Considering the same, I am of the opinion

that the claimant is entitled for compensation of

Rs.22,000/- (Rs.11,000x2) under the head of 'loss of

income during laid up period'.

The compensation of Rs.93,968/- awarded by

the Tribunal towards 'medical expenses' is retained as

it is.

Thus, the claimant is entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.1,75,968/- instead of

Rs.1,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the compensation amount along with interest at 6%

p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the

date of realization, within a period of six weeks from

the date of receipt of copy of this judgment excluding

interest for the delayed period of 228 days in filing the

appeal.

To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the

Claims Tribunal is modified.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

The Tribunal is directed to release entire

compensation amount in favour of the claimant, after

due verification.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MKM