Sri Ravikumar S B vs Sri Appajigowda T S
2022 Latest Caselaw 8276 Kant

                               1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                         BEFORE

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

                MFA No.140 OF 2019 (MV)

BETWEEN:

Sri.Ravikumar.S.B.,
s/o Byraiah,
Now aged about 27 years,
Residing presently at
KPTCL Quarters, RQH-3,
12TH ward, Opp: Post Office,
Ramanagara Town.
                                             ... Appellant
(By Sri.Gopal Krishna.N., Advocate)

AND:

1. Sri.Appajigowda.T.S.,
   S/o Siddegowda,
   Major in age,
   No.1152, Kamala Nivas,
   27th Ward, 1st Cross,
   Kempegowda Circle,
   Ramanagara Taluk & District.

2. Royal Sundaram General
   Insurance Company Ltd.,
   No.30th Stage, G.N.R.City Centre,
   Rajaram Mohan Roy Road,
   Samangirama Nagara,
   Bengaluru - 560 027.
   Rep. by its Manager.
                                          ... Respondents
                             2



(By Sri.C.R. Ravishankar, Advocate 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 16.10.2018 passed
in MVC No.314/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge &
JMFC, Additional MACT, Channapatna, Ramanagara, 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 16.10.2018 passed

by MACT, Channapattana in MVC No.314/2016.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 10.07.2016 at about 12.00

p.m. the claimant was proceeding in the motorcycle

bearing registration No.KA-42/Q-2631 in front of

Dr.Hegade's house at Arkavathi Bridge on B.M.road

towards Ijoor. At that time, the driver of the Maruthi

car bearing registration No.KA-42/M-8919 being

driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and

negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of 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.

4. On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1

and 3 appeared through counsel and filed separate

written statements 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

by respondent No.3 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.Krishna Prasad was

examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents

namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P24. On behalf of the

respondents, neither any witness was examined nor

got exhibited documents. 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.9,98,600/- 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 agriculture work and assisting in KPTCL and

earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has

taken the notional income as only Rs.7,000/- per

month.

Secondly, PW-2 - Dr.Krishna Prasad, Neuro

Surgeon in his evidence has stated that the claimant

has suffered physical impairment and neurological

disability of 50%. But the Tribunal has not given any

proper reason to take the whole body disability as

30%.

Thirdly, since the claimant has suffered head

injury he was unable to do his day to day work. The

Tribunal has failed to consider addition of future

prospects. In support of his contentions, he relied on

the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of

'ERUDHAYA PRIYA vs. STATE EXPRESS

TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. 2020' SCC

Online SC 601.

Fourthly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as

inpatient for a period of 18 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.

Fifthly, at the time of the accident the claimant

was aged about 25 years. The Tribunal has not

considered awarding of compensation under the head

'loss of marriage prospects'. Hence, he sought for

enhancement of compensation.

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.20,000/- 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, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his

evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of

50%, since in his evidence he has deposed that there

is an improvement in his condition and also claimant

has been examined as PW-1. He has answered all the

questions put to him by the other side. Therefore,

there is no neurological disability. Hence, the Tribunal

has rightly assessed the whole body disability and

rightly not considered addition of future prospects.

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. 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.

Due to the accident the claimant has suffered

traumatic brain injury - diffuse axonal injury grade 3.

He was inpatient for 18 days. He has examined

Dr.Krishna Prasad as PW2. In his evidence he has

deposed that the claimant has suffered permanent

disability due to physical impairment and neurological

disability of 50% and he has also deposed that his

general condition is gradually improved and he was

discharged with GCS-15/15. Considering the evidence

of the doctor and considering the wound certificate

and disability certificate, the Tribunal is justified in

considering the whole body disability as 30%. Since

his condition of neurological disability has been

improved and he himself has been examined as PW-1

and he has answered all the questions put to him

during the examination, I am of the opinion that the

Tribunal is justified in not considering addition of

future prospects. In the case relied upon by the

learned counsel for the claimant there is permanent

physical disability, the Court after looking into the

photographs annexed to the petition come to the

conclusion that there is permanent physical disability.

Considering the said facts of the case has considered

addition of future prospects. The said case is not

applicable to the case on hand.

Re.quantum.

10. The claimant claims that he was earning

Rs.20,000/- 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. The claimant was aged

about 25 years at the time of the accident and

multiplier applicable to his age group is '18'. Thus,

the claimant is entitled for compensation of

Rs.7,12,800/- (Rs.11,000*12*18*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 18 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, the claimant is entitled to 'loss of income during

laid-up period' for a period of 5 months, i.e.,

Rs.55,000/- (Rs.11,000*5) and since he was aged

about 25 years at the time of he accident, 'loss of

marriage prospects' has to be granted at Rs.50,000/-.

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 1,00,000 1,00,000 Medical & incidental 3,50,000 3,50,000 expenses Loss of income during 35,000 55,000 laid up period Loss of amenities 60,000 60,000 Loss of future income 4,53,600 7,12,800 Loss of marriage 0 50,000 prospects Total 9,98,600 13,27,800

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.13,27,800/- as against Rs.9,98,600/- 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

The Tribunal is directed to release the enhanced

compensation amount along with interest to the

claimant after due verification.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Cm/-