Smt Roopa U S vs Sri Chandrashekar
2021 Latest Caselaw 4872 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

                          BEFORE

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

                MFA No.7533 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN:

Smt. Roopa U.S.
W/o Chadrashekar M.V.,
Aged about 41 years,
R/o Dodda Munduvadi Village,
Harohalli Hobli,
Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagara District-562 117.             ... Appellant

(By Sri. Harish N.R., Advocate)

AND:
1.     Sri. Chandrashekar,
       S/o Veerabhadraiah,
       R/o No.69, Doddamudavadi Village,
       Harohalli Hobli,
       Kanakapura Taluk,
       Ramanagara District-562 117.

2.     The United India Insurance
       Company Ltd.,
       The Manager,
       Regional Office,
       5th and 6th Floor,
       Krushi Bhavan,
       Nrupathunga Road,
       Bengaluru-577 001.         ... Respondents

(By Sri. C.Shankar Reddy, Advocate for R2:
Notice to R1 is D/W V/O 31.01.2020)
                            2



      This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:17.06.2019 passed
in MVC No.2847/2018 on the file of the 9th Additional
Judge, Court of Small Causes, and Additional MACT,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore (SCCH-7), partly allowing the
claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement
of compensation.

      This MFA, coming on for admission, 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 17.06.2019 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore

(SCCH-7) in MVC No.2847/2018.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 22.12.2017. the claimant

was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration

No.KA-42/J-4982 on Bengaluru - Kanakapura road

near Nettigere. At that time, the rider of the

motorcycle rode the same at a high speed and in a

rash and negligent manner suddenly applied the

brake. As a result she fell down from the motorcycle

and sustained head injury and other injuries and was

hospitalized.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section

166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded

that she 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 appeared through counsel and respondent No.2

filed written statement 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 that the petition itself is false

and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded

that the accident was due to the rash and negligent

riding of the vehicle by the rider of the motorcycle.

The liability is subject to terms and conditions of the

policy. It was further pleaded that the quantum of

compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant.

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 herself was

examined as PW-1 and Dr.Veeresha U.Mathad was

examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents

namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. On behalf of the

respondents, neither any witness was examined 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.6,53,749/- 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. The learned counsel for the claimant has

raised the following contentions:

Firstly, due to the accident the claimant has

suffered head injury. She has suffered 59%

neurological disability. She has examined the doctor

as PW-2 who in his evidence has categorically stated

that the claimant has suffered 59% intellectual

disability. But the Tribunal has considering the whole

body disability at 25% which is on the lower side.

Secondly, even though the claimant claims that

she was working at Agri India Finance and earning

Rs.15,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the

notional income as only Rs.7,000/- per month.

Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. She was treated as

inpatient for a period of 30 days. Even after discharge

from the hospital, she was not in a position to

discharge her regular work. She has suffered lot of

pain during treatment and she has to suffer the

disability and unhappiness throughout her life.

Considering the same, the compensation granted by

the Tribunal under the heads of 'pain and sufferings'

and other heads are on the lower side and the

Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for 'loss

of amenities' and 'loss of income during laid-up

period'. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for

the Insurance Company has raised the following

contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he

was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, she has not

produced any documents to establish her income.

Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the

income of the claimant notionally.

Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his

evidence that there is a neurological disability of 59%,

he has admitted that 59% disability is mild as per the

guidelines of Ministry of Social Justice and

Empowerment Government Order. Therefore, the

whole body disability assessed by the Tribunal at 25%

is just and reasonable.

Thirdly, considering the evidence of the doctor

and considering the injuries suffered by the claimant

and considering the age and avocation, the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal for 'pain and

sufferings' and other heads is just and reasonable.

Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Perused the judgment and award and the original

records.

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 not produced any evidence

with regard to her 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 2017, the notional income has to be taken at

Rs.11,000/- p.m.

As per wound certificate, the claimant has

sustained permanent global neurological disability of

59%, motor system disability, mild left hemiparesis at

25%. The claimant was inpatient for 30 days. PW-2,

the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant

has suffered disability of 59% neurological disability to

whole body. Considering the evidence of the doctor

and considering the injuries suffered by the claimant I

am of the opinion that the whole body disability can

be assessed at 30%. The claimant was aged about 40

years at the time of the accident and multiplier

applicable to her age group is '15'. Thus, the claimant

is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,94,000/-

(Rs.11,000*12*15*30%) on account of 'loss of future

income'.

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered

grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He has

suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to

suffer with the disability stated by the doctor

throughout his life. Considering the same, I am

inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal under the head of 'special diet and

conveyance ' from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-, 'loss of

amenities' at Rs.40,000/- and 'loss of income during

laid-up period' for three months, i.e., Rs.33,000/-

(Rs.11,000*3).

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 50,000 50,000 Medical expenses 2,78,749 2,78,749 Special diet and 10,000 15,000 conveyance Loss of income during 0 33,000 laid up period Loss of amenities 0 40,000 Loss of future income 3,15,000 5,94,000 Total 6,53,749 10,10,749

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation

of Rs.10,10,749/-.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the compensation amount along with interest @ 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.

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 the enhanced

compensation amount in favour of the claimant after

due verification.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Cm/-