Manjunatha S S vs Sri Ravi H S
2022 Latest Caselaw 8732 Kant

                        1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                     BEFORE

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

          MFA No.5184 OF 2019(MV)

BETWEEN

MANJUNATHA S S
S/O LATE SANNALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/O SHYALAPURA VILLAGE
NIDAGAL HOBLI
PAVAGADA TALUK
NOW R/AT AVARGALLU VILLAGE
MEDIGESHI HOBLI
MADHUGIRI TALUK.
                                    ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SATHISHA T., ADV. )

AND

1.    SRI RAVI H S
      S/O SATHYANARAYANA
      AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
      R/O NO.18, 2ND FLOOR
      NEAR KRISHNA COMMUNITY HALL
      AYYAPPA NAGAR
      HOODI ROAD
      M D PURA POST
                          2




     BENGALURU-560048.

2.   RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
     COMPANY LIMITED
     RGIC 28, EAST WING
     5TH FLOOR,CENTENARY BUILDING
     M G ROAD,BENGALURU-560001.

                                    ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADV. 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
29/12/2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.895/2017, ON THE
FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
MACT-XIII, MADHUGIRI, 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 29.12.2018 passed

by Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT XIII, Madhugiri in

MVC 895/2017.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 29.04.2017 when the

claimant was returning to his house near the school

on the left side of the road at Avragallu village, at that

time, Bajaj CT 100 motorcycle bearing registration

No.KA-53-EK-8807 being ridden by its rider at a high

speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to

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.Praveen H.V. was examined

as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1

to Ex.P12. On behalf of the respondents, neither any

witness was examined nor any document was

produced. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned

judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place

on account of rash and negligent riding of the

offending vehicle by its rider, as a result of which, the

claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held

that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of

Rs.287,633/- 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 Shepherd work and earning Rs.25,000/-

per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional

income as merely as Rs.7,000/- per month.

Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his

evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of

30% to lower limb and 20% to whole body. But the

Tribunal has erred in taking the whole body disability

at only 8%.

Thirdly, even though the doctor has stated that

the claimant requires Rs.80,000/- for removal of

implants, the Tribunal has erred in not granting any

compensation under the head of 'future medical

expenses'.

Fourthly, 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, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his

evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of

30% to lower limb and 20% to whole body. The

Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the

claimant, has rightly assessed the whole body

disability at 8%.

Thirdly, even though the doctor has stated that

the claimant requires Rs.80,000/- for removal of

implants, the claimant has not produced any

documents either before the Tribunal or before this

court with regard to future treatment taken.

Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not awarded any

compensation under the head of 'future medical

expenses'.

Fourthly, 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 of the Tribunal.

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 2017, the notional income has to be

taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m.

As per wound certificate, the claimant has

sustained fracture of both legs. PW-2, the doctor has

stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered

disability of 30% to lower limb and 20% to whole

body. Therefore, taking into consideration the

deposition of the doctor, PW-2 and injuries mentioned

in the wound certificate, the whole body disability can

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.224,400/-

(Rs.11,000*12*17*10%) 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.33,000/- (Rs.11,000*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.10,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and

under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from

Rs.20,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.

Even though PW-2, doctor has stated that the

claimant requires about Rs.80,000/- for removal of

implants, but the claimant has not produced any

documents either before the Tribunal or before this

court with regard to future treatment taken.

Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not awarded any

compensation under the head of 'future medical

expenses'.

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 20,000 40,000

Medical expenses 126,113 126,113 Food, nourishment, 10,000 10,000 conveyance and attendant charges Loss of income during 14,000 33,000 laid up period Loss of amenities 10,000 40,000 Loss of future income 107,520 224,400 Total 287,633 473,513

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.473,513/-.

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

DM