Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shobha vs Sri. Somashekhara G. H on 24 June, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No. 8107 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN
SMT. SHOBHA
W/O VISHWESHWARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT AREMADHANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
ARKALGUD TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADV.)
AND
1. SRI. SOMASHEKHARA G. H.
S/O HANUMANTHA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
1ST BLOCK, VIJAPURA FOREST VILLAGE
CHIKKARAKALAGUDU POST
KASABA HOBLI
ARAKALGUD TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT.
2
2. THE MANAGER
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
NEAR PICTURE PALACE THEATER
OLD BUS STAND ROAD
HASSAN TOWN, HASSAN
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.E.I. SANMATHI, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:16.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1594/2018
ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, M.A.C.T., ARKALGUD, 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 dated 16.8.2019 passed by MACT,
Arkalgud in MVC 1594/2018.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 26.8.2018 when the
claimant was proceeding on the left side of Arakalagud
to Aremadanahalli Village as pillion rider on
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-13-EB-2051, at
that time, another motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-13-EF-9628 being ridden by its rider 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 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 riding of the offending vehicle by
its rider.
4. On service of notice, the respondents
appeared through their counsel and respondent No.2
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 herself was
examined as PW-1 and Dr.Raghunandan was
examined as CW-1 and got exhibited documents
namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P63. 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.275,158/- along with interest at
the rate of 9% 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 agricultural work and earning Rs.20,000/-
per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional
income as merely as Rs.5,000/- per month.
Secondly, CW-1, the doctor has stated in his
evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of
33% to lower limb. But the Tribunal has erred in
taking the whole body disability at only 11%.
Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has
sustained grievous injuries. She was treated as
inpatient for a period of 6 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.20,000/- per month, she has not
produced any documents to establish his income.
Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the
income of the claimant notionally.
Secondly, CW-1, the doctor has stated in his
evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of
33% to lower limb. The Tribunal considering the
injuries sustained by the claimant, has rightly
assessed the whole body disability at 11%.
Thirdly, 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.
Fourthly, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at
9% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher
side. 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 riding of the offending
vehicle by its rider.
The claimant claims that she was earning
Rs.20,000/- 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 2018, the notional income has to be
taken at Rs.12,500/- p.m.
As per wound certificate, the claimant has
sustained fracture of tibia and fibula and fracture of
right ankle. CW-1, the doctor has stated in his
evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of
33% to lower limb. Therefore, taking into
consideration the deposition of the doctor, CW-1 and
injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the
Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability
at 11%. The claimant is aged about 37 years at
the time of the accident and multiplier applicable
to his age group is '15'. Thus, the claimant is
entitled for compensation of Rs.247,500/-
(Rs.12,500*12*15*11%) 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.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 6 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 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.30,000/- to
Rs.50,000/- and under the head of 'loss of amenities'
from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.30,000/-.
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 30,000 50,000
Medical expenses 71,158 71,158
Food, nourishment, 20,000 20,000
conveyance and
attendant charges
Loss of income during 5,000 37,500
laid up period
Loss of amenities 10,000 30,000
Loss of future income 99,000 247,500
Future medical expenses 40,000 40,000
Total 275,158 496,158
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.496,158/-.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest @ 9%
p.a. (enhanced amount shall carry interest at 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
