Karnataka High Court
Shantabai W/O Basayya Stavaramth vs Ganapati S/O Birappa Hugar And Anr on 2 June, 2022
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
MFA No.200056/2015 (MV)
BETWEEN:
Shantabai
W/o Basayya Stavaramath
Age: 41 years, Occ: Tailoring Work
R/o Kannolli, Tq. Sindagi
Dist. Bijapur - 586 101
... Appellant
(By Sri. Babu H. Metagudda, Advocate)
AND:
1. Ganapati S/o Birappa Hugar
Age: 43 years, Occ: Business
R/o Halasangi, Tq. Indi, Dist. Gulbarga
2. The Branch Manager
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.
Sundaram Towers, White's road, Chennai
Tamilnadu State - 520 001
... Respondents
(Sri C.S. Kalburgi, Advocate for R2;
V/O Dtd. 18.01.2016, notice to R1 is dispensed with)
2
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, praying to allow the appeal and modify the
judgment and award dated 21.06.2014 passed in MVC
No.687/2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.VI,
Bijapur and enhance the compensation from Rs.62,500/-
with 6% interest to Rs.6,25,000/- with 12% interest.
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the judgment
and award dated 21.06.2014 passed in MVC No.687/2012
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.VI, Bijapur
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short), seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein
are referred with the original ranks occupied by them
before the Tribunal.
3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are
that, the claimant is tailor by profession. On 24.03.2012 at
about 7.00 p.m., she along with another lady was waiting
for vehicle in front of Vaishnavi Hotel on Kachcha road in
order to return to their native place Kannolli. It is alleged
that at that time, a TATA Ace vehicle bearing Reg.
No.KA-28/B-4439 came from Almel side driven by its
driver in a rash and negligent manner and the driver being
unable to control the vehicle, dashed against the claimant
and another lady and due to the said impact, the claimant
suffered fracture of L-1 vertebra and injuries on her knee.
She was admitted in A.R.Nayak Hospital, Bijapur for a
period of 15 days and spent more than Rs.75,000/- for
medical treatment. Hence, she has filed a claim petition
claiming compensation of Rs.6,25,000/-.
4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have appeared and
filed their objection statement denying the allegations and
assertions made thereunder. It is denied that the accident
is because of actionable negligence on the part of the
driver of the offending vehicle and they also denied the
age, occupation and income of the claimant. Further,
respondent No.1 contended that his vehicle is duly insured
with respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 asserted that
the driver was not possessing any valid and effective
driving licence and disputed the claim.
5. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence has awarded total compensation of
Rs.62,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. by
fastening the liability on respondent No.2-insurer.
6. Being aggrieved by this judgment and award
on the ground that the compensation awarded is on the
lower side, the claimant has filed this appeal, seeking
enhancement of the compensation.
7. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for
respondent No.2-insurer. Perused the records.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant
would contend that the Tribunal has taken the disability of
the claimant on the lower side and no compensation is
awarded towards loss of amenities. He would further
contend that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the
claimant has completely disabled because of her age and
hence, sought for enhancement of the compensation.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
No.2-insurer would support the judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal.
10. Having heard the arguments and perusing the
records, it is an admitted fact that the claimant did suffer
injuries in the road traffic accident dated 24.03.2012
involving the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-28/B-4439. The
coverage of the insurance of the vehicle by respondent
No.2 is also undisputed. The Tribunal has fastened the
liability on respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 has not
challenged the same.
11. The wound certificate at Ex.P9 disclose that the
claimant has suffered fracture of L-1 vertebra with
contusion over left knee and injury No.1 is shown to be
grievous. The Tribunal, on the basis of medical records
produced has awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards
medical expenses, which does not call for any interference.
12. However, the Tribunal has taken the income of
the claimant at Rs.4,500/- per month and considering her
age and disability at 5% to the whole body has awarded
Rs.40,500/ under the head 'loss of future income'. But, it
is to be noted here that the accident has occurred in the
year 2012. This Court is consistently taking the notional
income at the rate of Rs.6,500/- per month in respect of
the accidents occurred in the year 2012. Hence, the
Tribunal has erred in taking the income at Rs.4,500/- per
month instead of Rs.6,500/- per month. Considering the
age of the claimant, the proper multiplier of 15 is applied.
The Tribunal has taken the disability at 5% to the whole
body when the doctor has deposed that the claimant has
suffered disability to the extent of 15 to 20%. Though the
learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the
disability was taken on lower side, no evidence is
forthcoming to substantiate this contention. On the basis
of available record, the Tribunal has rightly taken the
disability at 5%. Hence, it does not call for any
interference. Under such circumstances, the total loss of
future income would work out to Rs.58,500/- (Rs.6500 x
12 x 15 x 5%).
13. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/-
towards pain and suffering considering the grievous and
simple injury. However, it is evident that the claimant has
suffered fracture of L-1 vertebra along with contusion over
left knee. The claimant being a woman required to
regularly work in the field as well as in the kitchen.
Considering these aspects, she is entitled for a sum of
Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering.
14. The claimant has suffered fracture of L-1
vertebra, which definitely prevents her from normal work
at least for two to three months. Further, during this
period, some of the attendant ought to have attended her.
Under these circumstances, under the head 'loss of earning
during laid up period including attendant charges',
I propose to award a sum of Rs.15,000/-.
15. The claimant is also entitled for Rs.30,000/-
towards loss of amenities.
16. Thus, the claimant is entitled for total
compensation under various heads as under:
Sl. Heads Amount
No.
1. Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/-
2. Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/-
3. Loss of future income Rs.58,500/-
4. Medical expenses Rs.12,000/-
5. Loss of earning during laid Rs.15,000/-
up period including
attendant charges
Total Rs.1,55,500/-
Hence, the claimant is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.1,55,500/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. as against Rs.62,500/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
17. Considering these facts and circumstances, the
appeal needs to be allowed in part. Accordingly, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The appellant/claimant is held entitled for total
compensation of Rs.1,55,500/- as against
Rs.62,500/- awarded by the Tribunal.
iii. The enhanced compensation shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till its realisation.
iv. Respondent No.2-insurer is directed to deposit
the enhanced compensation with interest
accrued thereon within six weeks from the date
of this order.
v. The entire enhanced amount shall be released
in favour of the claimant.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LG
