Karnataka High Court

Smt M C Pavithra vs Ravi 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.1652 OF 2021(MV)
BETWEEN:

SMT M C PAVITHRA
W/O UMASHANKARA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT MANDYA KOPPALU VILLAGE
ARAKERE HOBLI, S R PATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
                                         ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.THIPPESWAMY B C., ADV.)

AND:

1.     RAVI
       S/O RAJARATHNAM
       R/AT NO.270
       SHIVANASAMUDRA
       MALLIKYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE
       MALAVALLI TALUK.

2.     THE BRANCH MANAGER
       RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
       NO.36/D,1ST FLOOR,
       MYSORE TRADE CENTER
       OPPOSITE TO KSRTC BUS STAND
       B N ROAD, MYSORE.
                                      ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV. FOR R2:
    NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DATED: 20.07.2022)
                              2




     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
18.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.605/2018 ON THE FILE OF
THE   ADDITIONAL    SENIOR   CIVIL  JUDGE,   MACT,
SRIRANGAPATNA,    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 dated 18.01.2020 passed by the

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srirangapatna in MVC

No.605/2018.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 04.06.2017 at about 03.10

p.m., on Mandya-Banuru road, opposite to SPV

Bakery, near Kyathumgere Village, Mandya, when the

claimant was traveling in TATA Ace bearing

Registration No.KA-11-A-5741, the driver of the said

TATA Ace drove the same in a rash and negligent

manner, suddenly applied break, caused accident. 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 she 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. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false

and frivolous in the eye of law. 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.

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 herself was

examined as PW-1/PW-2 and Dr.Mahendrakumar K.L.

was examined as PW-3 and got exhibited documents

namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P23. On behalf of the

respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and

got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 and 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.1,26,335/- along with

interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the

Insurance Company to deposit the compensation

amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the

present appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the claimant has

raised the following contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that she

was doing coolie work and milk vending business and

earning Rs.12,000/- 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. She was treated as

inpatient for a period of 8 days. Even after discharge

from the hospital, she was not in a position to

discharge her regular work. She has suffered lot of

pain during treatment. Considering the same, the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the

heads of 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental

expenses are on the lower side. The Tribunal has

failed to consider the compensation under the head of

'loss of amenities'. 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 she

was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, she has not

produced any documents to establish her income.

Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the

income of the claimant notionally.

Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant

are minor in nature. She was treated as inpatient only

for a period of 8 days. 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 and it

does not call for interference.

Thirdly, in view of the Division Bench decision of

this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others

-v- Venkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and

connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the

rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. on

the compensation amount 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 of the Tribunal.

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 she was earning

Rs.12,000/- per month. She has not produced any

documents to prove her income. Therefore, in the

absence of proof of income, notional income has to be

assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the

Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the

accident 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 tenderness present over the right shoulder

joint, tenderness present over both lips and

tenderness present over the right knee joint. The

claimant has examined the doctor as PW-2. Therefore,

taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor

and injuries mentioned in the Wound Certificate, the

Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at

4%. 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.89,760/- (Rs.11,000*12*17*4%)

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 8 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.8,000/- to Rs.12,000/-.

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.15,000/- to Rs.25,000/- and under the head of

'pain and sufferings' from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.

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 30,000 40,000 Medical expenses 9,215 9,215 Food, nourishment, 8,000 12,000 conveyance and attendant charges Loss of income during 7,000 22,000

laid up period Loss of amenities 15,000 25,000 Loss of future income 57,120 89,760 Total 1,26,335 1,97,975

11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in

part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

The claimants are entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.1,97,975/- as against

Rs.1,26,335/- awarded by the Tribunal.

In view of judgment of the Division Bench of this

Court in the case of 'MS.JOYEETA BOSE', the

enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per

annum.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the compensation amount along with interest @ 9%