The Manager United India ... vs Imran Pasha
2022 Latest Caselaw 10210 Kant

                               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.1949 OF 2019(MV)

BETWEEN:

The Manager,
United India Insurance
Company Limited,
Branch Office Raghavendra Colony,
B.H.Road, Tiptur,
Tumkur District,
Now represented by its
Regional office, Hub 5 & 6th Floor,
5th Floor, Krushi Bhavan,
Hudson Circle, Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore-560 002,
Represented by its Manager,
S Venkata Krishna.                         ... Appellant

(By Sri.L.Sreekanta Rao., Advocate)

AND:

1.     Imran Pasha,
       S/o Syed Amanulla,
       Aged about 18 years,
       Since minor represented by
       His father Syed Amanulla,
       R/o Y.S.Palya Village,
       Huliyar Hobli, C.N.Halli Taluk,
       Tumkur District-572228.
                               2



2.    Siddaramaiah,
      S/o Madivalaiah,
      Aged about 47 years,
      R/at Huliyar, C.N.Halli Taluk,
      Tumkur District-572228.           ... Respondents

(Notice to R1 served but unrepresented
Notice to R2 is D/W v/o dated: 17.06.2022)

      This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated: 30.11.2018
passed in MVC No.476/2017 on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge & JMFC and XIX MACT, Chikkanayakanahalli,
awarding compensation of Rs.4,06,886/- with interest @
6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization of the
award amount not entitled interest for future medical
expenses.

      This MFA, coming on for hearing, 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 Insurance Company being

aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated

30.11.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC

XIX MACT at Chikkanayakanahalli in MVC

No.476/2017.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 22.09.2016 at about 11.30

a.m., the claimant was proceeding on a motorcycle

bearing registration No.KA-44/L-2270 as a pillion rider

on the left side of the road. At that time, a maruthi

van bearing registration No.KA-22/M-5569 being

driven by its driver 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 driving of the offending vehicle by

its driver.

4. On service of notice, the respondent No.2

appeared through counsel and 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. It was

further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle

did not have valid driving licence as on the date of the

accident. It was further pleaded that 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.

The respondent No.1 did not appear before the

Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was 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 father of the claimant was

examined as PW-1 and Dr.Abdul Khadar was

examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents

namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P67. 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 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.4,06,886/- 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 L.Sreekantarao, the learned counsel for

the Insurance Company has raised the following

contentions:

Firstly, at the time of the accident the claimant

was aged about 16 years, he was studying in SSLC,

he was a non-earning member of the family, he has

not produced any document to show that he was

earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Without any material

evidence, the Tribunal has erred in considering the

monthly income of the claimant as Rs.12,000/-.

Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant

are minor in nature, the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal for 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental

expenses is on the higher side. Hence, he sought for

reduction of compensation by allowing the appeal.

7. The respondents even though served have

remained unrepresented.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant

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.

At the time of the accident the claimant was

aged about 16 years, he was studying in SSLC. Even

though he has claimed that he was assisting his father

in agricultural operations and was earning Rs.10,000/-

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 2016, the

notional income has to be taken at Rs.9,500/- p.m.

Considering the age of the claimant, I am of the

opinion that the monthly income of the claimant can

be considered as Rs.9,000/- per month. The Tribunal

has rightly taken the whole body disability at 10%.

The claimant was aged about 16 years at the time of

the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group

is '18'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for

compensation of Rs.1,94,400/- (Rs.9,000*12*18*

10%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

Considering the nature of injuries, the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other

heads is just and reasonable.

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.3,42,096/- as against Rs.4,06,886/- awarded by

the Tribunal.

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

The amount in deposit is ordered to be

transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Cm/-