Karnataka High Court
H.J. Jayaprakash vs Mulla Dastagir Saheb on 8 June, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08th DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No. 5237 OF 2021 (MV)
BETWEEN:
H.J. JAYAPRAKSH
S/O JANARDHANA. S.L.,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O HASIDE,
HALASULIGE POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
SAKALESHPUR TALUK,
HASSAN-573201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BYRAREDDY G.S., ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. KAVITHA H.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MULLA DASTAGIR SAHEB
S/O M. ABDHUL RAZQ,
#23/73-11, KONDAPET DHONH,
KORANUL DISTRICT,
ANDHRAPRADESH STATE-518 222.
(OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION
NO.AP.21.TJD.0098)
2
2. THE MANAGER
SHRIRAMA GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
OPP BHORING HOSPITAL,
SHIVAJI NAGAR,
BANGALORE-01
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.PRADEEP ADVOCATE FOR R2.
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH. )
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.173(1) OF MV
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
24.02.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.827/2018 ON THE
FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MACT, HASSAN, 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 and decree dated 24.02.2021 passed
by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & M.A.C.T.,
Hassan in MVC No.827/2018.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 31.03.2018, at about 8.45
a.m., the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-50-E-8990 from Haside
village towards Coffee Board, at that time, lorry
bearing registration No.KA-21-TJZ-0098 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 respondents
appeared through counsel and filed written statements
in which the averments made in the petition were
denied.
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. Abdul Basheer was
examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents
namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. On behalf of the
respondents, neither any witness was examined nor
any documents were produced. 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.2,99,389/- along with interest at
the rate of 8% 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 painter work and earning Rs.25,000/- per
month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income
as merely as Rs.9,000/- per month.
Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has
sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as
inpatient for a period of 7 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, he contended that the injuries suffered
by the claimant are minor in nature and he was
impatient only for a period of 7 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.
Lastly, he contended that the interest awarded
by the tribunal at 8% is on higher side, contrary to
the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the
case of JOYEETA BOSE -V- UNITED INSURANCE
CO. 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 driving of the offending
vehicle by its driver.
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 2018, the notional income has to be
taken at Rs.12,500/- p.m.
As per wound certificate, the claimant has
sustained fracture clavicle right, head injury,
contusion injury neck, contusion injury chest. The
Tribunal after considering the evidence of the doctor
and the wound certificate has rightly assessed the
whole body disability at 5%. The claimant is aged
about 31 years at the time of the accident and
multiplier applicable to his age group is '16'. Thus,
the claimant is entitled for compensation of
Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.12,500/-*12*16*5%) 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 two months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for
compensation of Rs.37,500/- (Rs.12,500*3 months)
under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.
The claimant was treated as inpatient for more
than 7 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.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 45,000 45,000
Medical expenses 69,989 69,989
Food, nourishment, 25,000 25,000
conveyance and
attendant charges
Loss of income during 18,000 37,500
laid up period
Loss of amenities 30,000 40,000
Loss of future income 86,400 120,000
Future medical expenses 25,000 25,000
Total 2,99,389 3,62,489
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.3,62,489/-. In view of the law laid down by a
Division Bench of this Court in the case of JOYEETA
BOSE (supra), the rate of interest awarded by the
Tribunal at 8% is reduced to 6% p.a.
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
JY
