Karnataka High Court
Smt Lakshmidevamma vs The Manager 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.4836 OF 2020 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
W/O VENKATESH,
AGE ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT NO 99,
GUNDLAMANDIKAL, MANDIKALLU,
CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101.
NOW R/AT C/ OF
SRI. KOLADAMATTA,
SIDDAIAH ROAD,
BANGALORE-27
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P. MAHADEVASWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGER
SHRIRAM GEN. INS. CO. LTD.,
SYO, 2ND FLOOR,
MONARCH CHAMBERS,
INFANTRY ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 007.
2
2. LAKSHMIPATHY
S/O THYAGARAJU,
KAMMAGUTTAHALLI VILLAGE,
HIRENAGAVALI POST,
CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPESNSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.19.02.2019
PASSED IN MVC NO.112/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,
CHICKBALLAPUR, 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 19.02.2019 passed
by the Court of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal at Chickballapur in MVC
No.112/2015.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 28.03.2013, at about 11.00
p.m., the claimant was proceeding in the auto bearing
registration No.KA-40-6164 as an occupant. When
the auto reached near Mandikal Cross, Chickballapura,
at that time, canter bearing registration No.KA-36-
7447, being driven by its driver at a high speed and
in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the
auto in which the claimant was traveling. 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 she 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.1
appeared through counsel and filed written statement
in which the averments made in the petition were
denied.
The respondent No.2 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 herself was
examined as PW-1 and Dr. R. Kantharaju was
examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents
namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. On behalf of the
respondents, two witnesses were examined as RW-1
and RW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1
to Ex.R4. 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.1,75,800/- 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 she
was doing coolie work and earning Rs.10,000/- per
month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income
as merely as Rs.3,000/- per month.
Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has
sustained grievous injuries. She was treated as
inpatient for a period of 27 days. Even after discharge
from the hospital, she was not in a position to
discharge her regular work. She 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 she
was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, she has not
produced any documents to establish her income.
Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the
income of the claimant notionally.
Secondly, 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 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 she was earning
Rs.10,000/- per month. She has not produced any
documents to prove her 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 2013, the notional income has to be
taken at Rs.8,000/- p.m.
As per wound certificate, the claimant has
sustained fracture of right forearm, fracture of
segmental shaft ulna radius radial slyoid and fracture
of proximal phobonex of right finger (undergone
surgery of ORIF with DCP and screws shaft of ulna and
radius). PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence
that the claimant has suffered disability of 35.76% to
right upper limb and 11.92% to whole body.
Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of
the doctor, PW-2 and injuries mentioned in the
wound certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken the
whole body disability at 15%. The claimant is aged
about 30 years at the time of the accident and
multiplier applicable to her age group is '17'. Thus,
the claimant is entitled for compensation of
Rs.2,44,800/- (Rs.8,000*12*17*15%) 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.24,000/- (Rs.8000*3 months)
under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.
The claimant was treated as inpatient for more
than 27 days in the hospital and thereafter, has
received further treatment. Due to the accident, the
claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also
undergone surgery. She has suffered lot of pain
during treatment and she has to suffer with the
disability stated by the doctor throughout her 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.35,000/-
and under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from
Rs.25,000/- 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 25,000 40,000
Food, nourishment, 30,000 30,000
conveyance and
attendant charges
Loss of income during 9,000 24,000
laid up period
Loss of amenities 20,000 35,000
Loss of future income 91,800 2,44,800
Future medical expenses 10,000 10,000
Total 1,85,800 3,83,800
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.3,83,800/-.
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.
In view of the order dated 10.06.2022 passed by
this Court, the claimant is not entitled for interest for
the delayed period of 176 days in filing the appeal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JY
