Karnataka High Court
Sri Manjunath N A vs Sri Nagesh K S on 22 June, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.1895 OF 2020(MV)
BETWEEN
SRI MANJUNATH N A
S/O ANNAPPA PUJARI
AGED ABOUT 38 UYEARS
R/O NAGARAHALLI VILLAGE
KADASURU
HOSANAGAR TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.RAVINDRANATH.M., ADV.)
AND
1. SRI NAGESH K S
S/O KAMALAKSHA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/O KADASURU
HOSANAGAR TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
2. SRI BHARATH KUMAR K N
S/O NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/O KUNDURU VILLAGE
2
DEVARAYAPATTAN POST
TUMKUR TQ AND DISTRICT.
3. SRI. SURENDRA M C
S/O CHANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEAWRS
R/O NO. 8/1, BILLESHWARA,
HUMCHA LPOST HOSANAGAR TQ
SHIVAMOGGA DIST.
4. SRI NAGARAJU
S/O MAHALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/O KUNDURU VILLAGE
DEVARAYAPATTAN POST
TUMKUR TQ AND DISRT.
5. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE AT GOVINDA KRUPA
J.C. ROAD, SAGAR
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
6. THE BRANCH MANAGER
LIBERTY VIEOCON GENERAL
INSURANACE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE AT
NO.1, ALYSSA 1ST FLOOR
REAR PORTION OLD
NO.28, NEW NO.23
RICHMOND TOWN, BANGALORE 25.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADV. FOR R5 )
3
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
30.03.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1018/2016 ON THE
FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., 10 SAGAR,
ITINERARY AT HOSANAGAR, 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 dated 30.3.2019 passed by Addl.
Senior Civil Judge & JMFC and Addl. MACT, Sagar,
Itinerary at Hosanagar in MVC 1018/2016.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 14.6.2016 when the
claimant was proceeding in Maruthi Omni bearing
registration No.KA-01-MC-2251 along with others in
front of Mukambika Transport near Tumkur to Urukere
service road of Rangapura village, at that time, the
driver of the said car drove the same at a high speed
and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the
parked goods lorry. 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 their respective counsel and filed
written statement 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-3 and Dr.Sudhakar was examined as
PW-9 and got exhibited total documents namely Ex.P1
to Ex.P56 and Ex.C1 to C5. On behalf of the
respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and
got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 & Ex.R2. 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.12,86,700/- 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 mason work and earning Rs.20,000/- per
month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income
as merely as Rs.9,000/- per month.
Secondly, PW-9, the doctor has stated in his
evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of
80%. But the Tribunal has erred in taking the whole
body disability at only 60%.
Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has
sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as
inpatient for a period of 25 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 incidental heads are on the lower side.
Fourthly, the claimant has suffered crush injury
to his left leg and there is amputation. PW-9 has
deposed that for fixing artificial leg, the claimant
requires Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.200,000/- and the
validity period the said artificial leg is only for five
years. But the Tribunal has erred in granting only
Rs.1,00,000/- towards 'future medical expenses'.
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.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-9, the doctor has stated in his
evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of
80% to lower limb. The Tribunal considering the
injuries sustained by the claimant, has rightly
assessed the whole body disability at 60%.
Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by the
claimant and considering the age and avocation of the
claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under 'pain and sufferings', 'loss of amenities' and
other incidental expenses is just and reasonable
compensation.
Fourthly, even though PW-9 has deposed that
for fixing artificial leg, the claimant requires
Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.200,000/-, but the claimant has
not produced any estimation. Therefore, Tribunal has
rightly granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards 'future medical
expenses'. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the judgment and award 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.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 2016, the notional income has to be
taken at Rs.9,500/- p.m.
As per wound certificate, the claimant has
sustained crush injury to his left leg, which is amputed
and fracture of left femur. PW-9, the doctor has stated
in his evidence that the claimant has suffered
disability of 80%. 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 60%. The
claimant is aged about 41 years at the time of the
accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is
'14'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation
of Rs.957,600/- (Rs.9,500*12*14*60%) 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 5 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for
compensation of Rs.47,500/- (Rs.9500*5 months)
under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.
The claimant has suffered crush injury to his left
leg and there is amputation. PW-9 has deposed that for
fixing artificial leg, the claimant requires Rs.1,00,000/-
to Rs.200,000/- and the validity period the said artificial
leg is only for five years. Considering the evidence of the
doctor and injuries sustained by the claimant, I am
inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under the head of 'future medical expenses'
from Rs.100,000/- to Rs.175,000/-.
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 Court
different Heads Tribunal (Rs.)
(Rs.)
Pain and sufferings 100,000 100,000
Medical expenses 23,500 23,500
Food, nourishment, 20,000 20,000
conveyance and attendant
charges
Loss of income during laid 36,000 47,500
up period
Loss of amenities 100,000 100,000
Loss of future income 907,200 957,600
Future medical expenses 100,000 175,000
Total 12,86,700 14,23,600
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.14,23,600/-.
The respondent No.5, United India 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 excluding interest for the
compensation awarded under the head of 'future
medical expenses'.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
