Karnataka High Court

Dharanesh N vs Rajanna H on 4 July, 2022

Bench: H T Prasad

                                1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2022

                           BEFORE

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

                 MFA No.1093 OF 2021(MV)

BETWEEN:

Dharanesh N.,
S/o Ningaiah,
Aged about 32 years,
R/o Nagathihalli Village,
Konehalli Post, Kasaba Hobli,
Tiptur Taluk-572201                     ... Appellant

(By Sri.Gireesha S.N., Advocate)

AND:

1.     Rajamma H.,
       S/o Hanumantharayappa,
       Aged about 28 years,
       R/at Hethenahalli Village,
       Gulur Post, Gulur Hobli,
       Tiptur Taluk-572201.

2.     ICICI Lombard General
       Insurance Co. Ltd.,
       2nd Floor, SVR Complex,
       Hosur Main Road,
       Bangalore-562109.            ... Respondents

(By Sri.H.N.Keshavaprashanth., Advocate for R2:
Notice to R1 is D/W v/o dated: 04.07.2022)
                             2



       This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:04.03.2020 passed
in MVC No.755/2019 on the file of the V-Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Tiptur, partly allowing the claim
petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.

      This MFA, coming on for orders, this day, this Court,
delivered the following:

                     JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Act') has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved

by the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2020 passed

by V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur in MVC

No.755/2019.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 08.11.2018 at about 11.30

p.m., the claimant was proceeding in a bike bearing

registration No.KA-04/JC-0771 as a pillion rider.

When they came near garden land of Mahalingappa in

new bye-pass road, Koratagere town in Koratagere -

Tumkur road, at that time, the rider of another

motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-06/EZ-1745

being ridden by its rider at a high speed and in a rash

and negligent manner, 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. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not appear

before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and

were placed ex-parte.

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.G.Nagaraj was examined as

PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to

Ex.P22. On behalf of the respondents, neither any

witness was examined nor got exhibited documents.

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.3,21,640/- along with

interest @ 7% p.a. and directed the Insurance

Company to deposit the compensation amount along

with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been

filed.

6. Sri Gireesha S.N., the learned counsel for

the claimant has raised the following contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he

was doing agriculture and earning Rs.20,000/- per

month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income

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

Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as

inpatient for a period of 12 days. Even after discharge

from the hospital, he was not in a position to

discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain

during treatment and he has to suffer the disability

and unhappiness throughout his life. Considering the

same, the compensation granted by the Tribunal

under the heads of 'pain and sufferings', 'loss of

amenities' and other incidental expenses are on the

lower side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

7. On the other hand, Sri H.N.Keshava

Prashanth, the learned counsel for the Insurance

Company has raised following counter contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he

was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, he has not

produced any documents to establish his income.

Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the

income of the claimant notionally.

Secondly, considering the injuries sustained by

the claimant and considering the age and avocation of

the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by

the Tribunal is just and reasonable compensation.

Thirdly, in view of the law laid down by a

Division Bench of this Court in the case of

MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS vs.

VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018

and connected matters disposed of on

24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the

Tribunal at 7% p.a. is on the higher side. Hence, he

sought for 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

sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of the offending

vehicle by its driver.

The claimant claims that he was earning

Rs.20,000/- per month. He has not produced any

documents to prove 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 2018, the notional income has to be

taken at Rs.12,500/- p.m. the Tribunal has rightly

assessed the whole body disability as 10%. At the

time of the accident the claimant was aged about 30

years and multiplier applicable to his age group is

'17'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation

of Rs.2,55,000/- (Rs.12,500*12*17*10%) on account

of 'loss of future income'.

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered

grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He was

treated as inpatient for more than 12 days in the

hospital and thereafter, has received further

treatment. He has suffered lot of pain during

treatment and he has to suffer with the disability and

unhappiness throughout his life. Considering the

same, I am inclined to enhance the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal under the head 'loss of

income during laid-up period' from Rs.21,000/- to

Rs.37,500/- (Rs.12,500*3).

Considering the nature of injuries, 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 85,000 85,000 Medical expenses, food 27,840 27,840 and nourishment, etc. Loss of income during 21,000 37,500 laid up period Loss of amenities 45,000 45,000 Loss of future income 1,42,800 2,55,000 Total 3,21,640 4,50,340

11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.

The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation

of Rs.4,50,340/- as against Rs.3,21,640/- awarded by

the Tribunal.

In view of the law laid down by a Division Bench

of this Court in JOYEETA BOSE (supra) the

enhanced compensation carries interest @ 6% p.a.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the compensation amount along with interest @ 7%

p.a. (interest @ 6% p.a. on the enhanced

compensation) from the date of filing of the claim