Karnataka High Court
Naveen Naika vs Madhu Naika on 30 June, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.4250 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN:
NAVEEN NAIKA
S/O KUBYANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, COOLIE
R/O ROMMANAKATTE VILLAGE
HOLALKERE TALUK-577526
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA, ADV. )
AND:
1. MADHU NAIKA
S/O KUBYANAIKA
MAJOR, R/O BOAMMANAKATTE VILLAGE
GANDERI POST
HOLALKERE TALUK-577526
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OPP: BAPUJI AUDITORIUM
MCC-B BLOCK, DAVANAGERE-577001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.L.SREEKANTA RAO, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
2
24.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.664/2017 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLALKERE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSIONS, 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 24.11.2018 passed
by MACT, Holalkere in MVC No.664/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 24.09.2016 at about 10.00
a.m. the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-16/EC-4363 from
Bommanakatte to Honnayakanahally village of
Davanagere Taluk as a pillion rider. When they
reached near Bandebommenahally village gate, at
that time, the rider of the motorcycle rode the saem
at a high speed and in rash and negligent manner,
due to which, the vehicle toppled down and caused
the 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 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
further 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 and Dr.Dinesh S.P. was examined
as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1
to Ex.P11. On behalf of the respondents, no witness
was examined but got exhibited document namely
Ex.R1. 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.2,46,011/- 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 doing coolie work and earning Rs.20,000/- per
month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income
as merely as 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 10 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.25,000/- 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. He was treated as inpatient only
for a period of 10 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
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 rider of the offending
vehicle by its rider.
The claimant claims that he was earning
Rs.25,000/- 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.
As per wound certificate, the claimant has
sustained fracture of right humerus and fracture of
right elbow. He has examined the doctor as PW-2.
Therefore, 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 14%. The claimant is aged about
26 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.2,71,320/-
(Rs.9,500*12*17*14%) 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.19,000/- (Rs.9,500*2 months)
under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.
Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered
grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He was
treated as inpatient for more than 10 days in the
hospital. 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.10,000/- to Rs.40,000/-, 'pain and sufferings' from
Rs.25,000/- 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 25,000 40,000
Medical expenses 14,651 14,651
Food, nourishment, 15,000 15,000
conveyance and
attendant charges
Loss of income during 10,000 19,000
laid up period
Loss of amenities 10,000 40,000
Loss of future income 1,71,360 2,71,320
Total 2,46,011 3,99,971
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.3,99,971/- as against Rs.2,46,011/- 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
