Karnataka High Court
Sri Praveen vs Sri Muniya 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.2614 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN
SRI PRAVEEN
S/O H. SIDDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT AJJIPURA VILLAGE
KOLLEGALA TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT
CHAMARAJANAGARA-571439.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BHANU PRAKASH H V., ADV. )
AND
1. SRI MUNIYA
S/O SIDDA
R/AT KOLAGALA VILLAGE
MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT
MYSORE-570015.
2. SRI. MUTHURAJU
S/O BILIYAPPA SHETTY
R/AT NO.34, MUTHUSETTIYUR VILLAGE
KOLLEGAL TALUK
2
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
CHAMARAJANAGAR.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
T.P HUB NEAR BULLAL CIRCLE
MYSURU(KRISHNAMURTHY PURAM)
MYSORE-570 005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JANARDHANA REDDY. ADV. FOR R3:
NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:29.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.972/2016 ON
THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, ADDITIONAL COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES, PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR
ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
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:
3
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 29.10.2018 passed by MACT,
Mysuru in MVC 972/2016.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 13.3.2016 when the
claimant was traveling in lorry bearing registration
No.KA-01-C-9038 from Karnataka to Tamilnadu near
Kirepathre road, Kollegala Taluk, at that time, the
driver of the said lorry drove the same at a high speed
and in a rash and negligent manner, 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 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.3
appeared through counsel and filed written statement
in which the averments made in the petition were
denied.
The respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not appear
before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and
were 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.Puttaswamy was examined
as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1
to Ex.P11. On behalf of the respondents, one witness
was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited 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.292,880/- 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, 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 he
was doing cleaner work and earning Rs.12,000/- per
month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income
as merely as Rs.9,000/- per month.
Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor
as PW-2. The doctor in his evidence has stated that
the claimant has suffered disability of 24% to
particular limb. But the Tribunal has taken the whole
body disability at 8%, which is on the lower side.
Thirdly, 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 awarded by the Tribunal under the
heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and
other incidental expenses are on the lower side.
Fourthly, PW-2 the doctor has stated that the
claimant requires an amount of Rs.25,000/- to
undergo surgery for removal of implants. But the
Tribunal has granted meager compensation of
Rs.15,000/- 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, the doctor in his evidence has stated
that the claimant has suffered disability of 24% to
particular limb. The Tribunal considering the injuries
sustained by the claimant, has rightly assessed the
whole body disability at 8%.
Thirdly, claimant has not produced any
documents either before the Tribunal or before this
court with regard to particulars of surgery and cost of
surgery. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly awarded
Rs.15,000/- under the head of 'future medical
expenses'.
Fourthly, 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. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
Fifthly, he has contended that the claimant was
traveling in the lorry as gratuitous passenger. Hence,
the Insurance Company is not liable to pay
compensation. The same has been challenged by the
Insurance Company by filing an appeal in MFA
1131/2019. This Court by judgment dated 13.11.2019
has dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the
judgment and award of the Tribunal.
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 he was earning
Rs.12,000/- per month. He has not produced any
documents to prove his 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 2016, the notional
income has to be taken at Rs.9,500/- p.m.
As per wound certificate, the claimant has
sustained fracture of left forearm and injuries to other
parts of the body. The doctor in his evidence has
stated that the claimant has suffered disability of
24% to lower limb. 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 8%. The
claimant is aged about 27 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.155,040/- (Rs.9,500*12*17*8%) 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 3 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for
compensation of Rs.28,500/- (Rs.9,500*3 months)
under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.
The claimant was treated as inpatient for more
than 10 days in the hospital and thereafter, has
received further treatment. 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.20,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and under
the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.25,000/- to
Rs.50,000/-.
The doctor in his evidence has stated that the
claimant requires about Rs.25,000/- towards 'future
medical expenses'. But the claimant has not produced
any documents either before the Tribunal or before
this court with regard to particulars of surgery and
cost of surgery. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly
awarded Rs.15,000/- under the head of '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 25,000 50,000
Medical and incidental 59,000 59,000
expenses
Loss of income during 27,000 28,500
laid up period
Loss of amenities 20,000 40,000
Loss of future income 146,880 155,040
Future medical expenses 15,000 15,000
Total 292,880 347,540
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.347,540/-.
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
DM
