Karnataka High Court

Sri Hanumanthanaika vs Sri Shankara on 10 June, 2022

Bench: H T Prasad

                        1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                     BEFORE

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

          MFA No.1189 OF 2020 (MV)


BETWEEN:

SRI. HANUMANTHANAIKA
S/O. NANKYA NAIKA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT DEVARADODDI VILLAGE,
KYLANCHA HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK-560 093.
                                     ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. TEJAS N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   SRI. SHANKARA
     S/O. LATE NAGAPPA,
     AGE MAJOR,
     R/AT: NO.786,
     3RD DIVISION,
     HAROHALLI,
     KANAKAPURA TALUK,
     RAMANGARA DISTRICT-562 117.
                          2



2.   THE MANAGER,
     THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
     III FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING
     ANNEXE NO.72, MISSION ROAD,
     BANGALORE-560 027.
                                ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2
 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.09.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 63/2017 ON THE
FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, M.A.C.T., RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 23.09.2019 passed

by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and

Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Ramanagara in

MVC No.63/2017.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 18.09.2016, the claimant

was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing registration

No.KA-05-EJ-1403 as a pillion rider from SRS Hill

towards his native. When the rider of the said

motorcycle reached near the Sahukaradoddi village,

Kailancha Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, at that time,

TATA Ace bearing registration No.KA-42-A-3812 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 No.2

appeared through counsel and filed written statement

in which the averments made in the petition were

denied.

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. Raghunath R. was

examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents

namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. On behalf of the respondents,

neither any witnesses were 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.50,000/- along with interest at

the rate of 7% 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, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his

evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of

30% limitation of flexion extension arc in the right

elbow and 7.5% of Permanent Physical Impairment.

But the Tribunal has failed to assess the whole body

disability and has not granted any compensation for

loss of future income.

Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as

inpatient for a period of 4 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

Tribunal has granted global compensation of

Rs.50,000/-. 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, he contends that the injuries sustained

by the claimant is minor in nature and he was

impatient only for a period of 4 days. He has not

undergone any surgery and the fractures are fully

united and he has not assessed any whole body

disability. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in

considering the global compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

Secondly, he contended that the interest

awarded by the tribunal at 7% 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.500/- per day by working as Mason. 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 lacerated injury over the right arm below

elbow measuring 6cm x 1cm x 1cm and tenderness on

right hip region. PW-2, the doctor has stated in his

evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of

30% limitation of flexion extension arc in the right

elbow and 7.5% of Permanent Physical Impairment.

Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of

the doctor, PW-2 and injuries mentioned in the

wound certificate, I am of the opinion that the whole

body disability can be assessed at 3%. The claimant

is aged about 28 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.58,140/- (Rs.9500/-*12*17*3%) on account of

'loss of future income'.

The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant

must have been under rest and treatment. Therefore,

the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.9,500/-

(one month) under the head 'loss of income during

laid up period'.

The claimant was treated as inpatient for more

than 4 days in the hospital and thereafter, has

received further treatment. Hence, I am inclined to

grant the compensation under the head of

'conveyance, nourishment and attendance charges' of

Rs.5,000/-.

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 grant the compensation under the head of

'loss of amenities' of Rs.25,000/- and under the head

of 'pain and sufferings' of Rs.25,000/-.

Considering the nature of injuries, the global

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as

under:

10. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

following compensation:

As awarded Compensation under by this different Heads Court (Rs.) Pain and sufferings 25,000 Food, nourishment, 5,000 conveyance and attendant charges Loss of income during 9,500 laid up period Loss of amenities 25,000 Loss of future income 58,140 Total 1,22,640