Karnataka High Court

Mr K B Srinivasa vs Mr O Ramesha on 20 July, 2022

Bench: H T Prasad

                            1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2022

                         BEFORE

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

                MFA No.8978 OF 2019(MV)

BETWEEN:

Mr.K.B.Srinivasa,
S/o Beedappa,
Aged about 42 years,
R/o Kamsagara Village,
Kadur Taluk,
Chikkamagaluru District-577548.          ... Appellant

(By Sri.Smt. Manjula., Advocate for
Sri. Nagaraja R.C., Advocate)

AND:

1.     Mr. O.Ramesha,
       S/o Obaleshappa,
       Aged about 28 years,
       R/o Kanchipura Village,
       Hosadurga Taluk,
       Chitradurga District.

2.     Mr. C. Halappa,
       S/o Chennabasappa,
       Aged about 54 years,
       R/o Chowlahiriyur Village,
       Kadur Taluk,
       Chikkamagaluru District-577548.
                            2




3.   The Branch Manager,
     National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
     P.B. No.179,
     Rathnagiri Road,
     Chikkamagaluru-577548.            ... Respondents

(By Sri.Ashok N Patil, Advocate for R3:
Notice to R1 & R2 is served and unrepresented)

       This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:03.09.2019
passed in MVC No.205/2017 on the file of the Senior
Civil Judge, & MMACT Kadur, 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 Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Act') has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved

by the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2019 passed

by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Kadur,

Chikkamagalur District in MVC No.205/2017.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 22.02.2017 the claimant was

proceeding on the left side of railway station at Kadur,

at that time, a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA-

66/293 came from back side, 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.

to 3 appeared through counsel and respondent No.3

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 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.

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.Umesh Kamath was

examined as CW-1 and got exhibited documents

namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P318 and C1 to C6. On behalf of

the respondents, no witness was examined but got

marked two documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R2. 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.6,92,657/- 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. The learned counsel for the claimant has

raised the following contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he

was doing plumbing work and earning Rs.12,000/- per

month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income

as only Rs.6,000/- per month.

Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as

inpatient for a period of 16 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 and

the Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation for

'loss of amenities'.

Thirdly, due to the accident the claimant has

undergone surgery, the doctor has deposed that the

claimant requires Rs.30,000/- for removal of implants.

But the Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation

under the head of 'future medical expenses'. 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.12,000/- 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, even though the doctor has deposed

that the claimant requires Rs.30,000/- for 'future

medical expenses', he has not given any estimate or

the claimant has not produced any document to show

that he has undergone any surgery for removal of

implants. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly not awarded

any compensation under the said head.

Thirdly, 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.

      Fourthly,    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 and the original

records.

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.12,000/- 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. Considering the evidence

of the doctor and considering the injuries suffered by

the claimant, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the

whole body disability at 30%. The claimant was aged

about 43 years at the time of the accident and

multiplier applicable to his age group is '14'. Thus,

the claimant is entitled for compensation of

Rs.5,54,400/- (Rs.11,000*12*14*30%) 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 16 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 of the opinion that the claimant is entitled

to compensation of Rs.30,000/- for 'loss of amenities'

and 'loss of income during laid-up period' for a period

of two months, i.e., Rs.22,000/- (Rs.11,000*2).

The claimant has examined the doctor PW-2,

who in his testimony stated that the claimant requires

about Rs.30,000/- for removal of implants.

Considering the evidence of the doctor, I am of the

opinion that the claimant requires Rs.15,000/- for

'future medical expenses'.

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 50,000 50,000 Medical expenses 2,98,657 2,98,657 Food, nourishment, 40,000 40,000 conveyance and attendant charges Loss of income during 1,600 22,000 laid up period Loss of amenities 0 30,000 Loss of future income 3,02,400 5,54,400 Future medical expenses 0 15,000 Total 6,92,657 10,10,057

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.10,10,057/- as against Rs.6,92,657/- 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