Karnataka High Court
Kaisar Pasha vs Wasi Ulla on 5 July, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.4983 OF 2020(MV)
BETWEEN:
KAISAR PASHA
S/O. ABDUL SATHAR
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT NO. 437, CHIKKANAYAKARA BEEDI
T. NARASIPURA TOWN.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SYED ABDUL SABOOR, ADV.)
AND:
1. WASI ULLA
S/O. T. MOHAMMED ISMAIL
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT NO.338, JANATHA COLONY
GARGESHWARI, KASABA HOLI
T. NARASIPURA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 110.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
J.L.B. ROAD, CHAMUNDIPURAM
MYSURU-570 004.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.R. VENKATESH KAMATH, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH:
V/O DATED: 05.07.2022)
2
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:11.09.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.665/2017, ON
THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, ADDITIONAL COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT, MYSURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
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 11.09.2019 passed
by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mysuru in MVC
No.665/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 12.05.2017 between 02.30
A.M. to 03.00 A.M. when the claimant was going on
Motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-55-W-3781 as
a pillion rider from Mysuru to T. Narasipura and when
they reached near Dodda Aladha Mara, Chikkahalli
Village, the rider of Motorcycle drove the same in a
rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied the
break. As a result of the same, the claimant fell down
from the motorcycle and 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, the respondent Nos.1
and 2 have appeared through counsel and only
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 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 himself was
examined as PW-1 and Dr.Karunakar was examined
as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1
to Ex.P14. On behalf of the respondents, neither any
witness was examined nor any document was
produced. 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.2,64,000/- 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. The learned counsel for the claimant has
raised the following contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he
was working as a driver and earning Rs.15,000/- per
month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income
as merely as 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 19 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. Considering the same, the
compensation granted by the Tribunal under the
heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and
other heads are on the lower side. Hence, he sought
for allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company has raised following counter
contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he
was earning Rs.15,000/- 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, the injuries suffered by the claimant
are minor in nature. 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.
Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has
sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred
due to rash and negligent riding of the offending
vehicle by its rider.
The claimant claims that he was earning
Rs.15,000/- 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 2017, the notional income has to be
taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m.
As per wound certificate, the claimant has
sustained commuted fracture of left clavicle, abrasion
punchered wound over medial clavicle region left,
tenderness in II, III and IV rib which are grievous in
nature. He has examined the doctor as PW-2. Taking
into consideration the deposition of the doctor, PW-2
and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the
Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability
at 7%. The claimant is aged about 30 years at the
time of the accident and multiplier applicable
to his age group is '17'. Thus, the claimant is
entitled for compensation of Rs.1,57,080/-
(Rs.11,000*12*17*7%) on account of 'loss of future
income'.
The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant
must have been under rest and treatment for a period
of 02 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for
compensation of Rs.22,000/- (Rs.11,000*2 months)
under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.
The claimant was treated as inpatient for more
than 19 days in the hospital and thereafter, has
received further treatment. Hence, I am inclined to
enhance the compensation awarded under the head of
'conveyance, nourishment and attendance charges'
from Rs.9,500/- to Rs.12,500/-.
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 'loss of amenities' from
Rs.5,000/- to Rs.25,000/- and 'pain and sufferings'
from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.30,000/-.
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 15,000 30,000
Medical expenses 1,20,500 1,20,500
Food, nourishment, 9,500 12,500
conveyance and
attendant charges
Loss of income during 14,000 22,000
laid up period
Loss of amenities 5,000 25,000
Loss of future income 1,00,000 1,57,080
Total 2,64,000 3,67,080
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.3,67,080/- against Rs.2,64,000/- 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.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HA/-
