Karnataka High Court
Sri Prabhu @ Ningaiah vs Smt Savitha on 19 July, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.147 OF 2022(MV)
BETWEEN:
Sri. Prabhu @ Ningaiah,
S/o Muddiah,
Now aged about 32 years,
R/at Palabovidoddi Village,
Harisandra Post,
Kasaba Hobli,
Ramanagara District-562 159. ... Appellant
(By Sri.Tejas N., Advocate)
AND:
1. Smt. Savitha,
W/o Nagaraju S.,
Major,
R/at NO.6, 6th Main Road,
5th Cross, Opp. Vijayanagar Club,
KSB Building, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore-560 040.
2. The Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Co.,
No.28, East Wing, 5th Floor,
Centenary Building, M.G. Road,
Bangalore-560 001. ... Respondents
(By Sri.Ashok N Patil, Advocate for R2:
Notice to R1 is D/W v/o dated: 19.07.2022)
2
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:07.10.2021 passed
in MVC No.800/2019 on the file of the XI Additional Small
Causes Judge & ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member,
MACT-12, Bengaluru, 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 07.10.2021 passed
by the XI Addl. Small Causes and Addl. MACT,
Bangalore (SCCH-12) in MVC No.800/2019.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 04.12.2018 at about 9.45
p.m. the claimant was standing on Magadi -
Ramanagara road near Palavabovidoddi village,
Kasaba Hobli, Ramangara. At that time, vehicle
bearing registration No.KA-03/MZ-6787 being driven
by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner, dashed to 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 negligence of the claimant
himself. 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 claimant himself was
examined as PW-1, Dr.Venkataram Kumar K. was
examined as PW-2 and Dr.Venkatesh R.P. was
examined as PW-3 and got exhibited documents
namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. 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.6,32,200/- along with interest @
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 Tejas, the learned counsel for the
claimant has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he
was doing cooking work and earning Rs.15,000/- per
month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income
as only Rs.10,000/- per month.
Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has
sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as
inpatient for a period of 9 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 heads are on the lower side.
Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.
7. On the other hand, Sri Ashok N.Patil, 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, 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 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.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 2018, the notional income has to be
taken at Rs.12,500/- p.m. Due to the accident, the
claimant has sustained fracture of shaft of left femur,
fracture of left fibula and fracture of left superior
public rami with ace tabular fracture. Considering the
deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the
wound certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken the
whole body disability at 18%. The claimant was
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.4,59,000/- (Rs.12,500*12*17*18%) on account of
'loss of future income'.
In view of raise in the income, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under the head 'loss of
income during laid-up period' has to be enhanced
from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.75,000/-.
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 60,000 60,000
Medical expenses 95,000 95,000
Loss of income during 60,000 75,000
laid up period
Loss of amenities 50,000 50,000
Loss of future income 367,200 459,000
Total 632,200 7,39,000
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.7,39,000/- as against Rs.6,32,200/- 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.
Office is directed to send back the records to the
Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Cm/-
