Karnataka High Court
Sri. Siddaiah vs Sri. Ravi V on 27 June, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.7976 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN
SRI. SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
S/O LATE MANCHAIAH
R/AT KATTEMALALAVADI
HUNSUR TALUK
MYSURE DISTRICT 571105.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LOKESH D.K., ADV.
SRI. P NATARAJU, ADV.)
AND
1. SRI. RAVI V
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
S/O VISHAKANTA
R/AT NO.36, HULLAKERE
BELAGOLA HOBLI
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571438.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
2
DB PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR
47, WHITES ROAD CHENNAI
TAMILNADU STATE-600001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ANAND R V., ADV. FOR R1:
SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION.173(1) OF
MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DT.14.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.908/2013 ON THE
FILE OF THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, ADDITIONAL
SMALL CAUSES, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU,
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 14.11.2018 passed by MACT,
Mysuru in MVC 908/2013.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 13.11.2012 when the
claimant was traveling in autorickshaw bearing
registration No.KA-11-A-7413 from K.R.Sagar Railway
Station to Ukkada Temple, at that time, Tata Ace Cab
bearing registration No.KA-11-A-1481 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 respondents
appeared through counsel and filed written statements
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-1 and Dr.B.G.Sagar was examined as
PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to
Ex.P17. 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 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.1,22,360/- 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 coolie work and earning Rs.10,000/- per
month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income
as merely as Rs.4,500/- per month.
Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his
evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of
36% to lower limb. But the Tribunal has erred in
taking the whole body disability at only 12%.
Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has
sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as
inpatient for a period of 23 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.10,000/- 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
36% to lower limb. The Tribunal considering the
injuries sustained by the claimant, has rightly
assessed the whole body disability at 12%.
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. 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.10,000/- 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 2012, the notional income has to be
taken at Rs.7,000/- p.m.
As per wound certificate, the claimant has
sustained fracture of both bones of tibia and fibula of
left leg. PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence
that the claimant has suffered disability of 36% to
lower limb. 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 12%. The claimant is
aged about 65 years at the time of the accident and
multiplier applicable to his age group is '7'. Thus,
the claimant is entitled for compensation of
Rs.70,560/- (Rs.7000*12*7*12%) 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.21,000/- (Rs.7000*3 months)
under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.
The claimant was treated as inpatient for more
than 23 days in the hospital and thereafter, has
received further treatment. Hence, I am inclined to
enhance the compensation awarded under the head of
'medical and conveyance, nourishment and
attendance expenses' from Rs.18,500/- to
Rs.25,000/-.
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 enhance the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under the head of 'loss of amenities' from
Rs.10,000/- to Rs.30,000/- and under the head of
'pain and sufferings' from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.35,000/-.
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 20,000 35,000
Medical expenses 18,500 25,000
Loss of income during 13,500 21,000
laid up period
Loss of amenities 10,000 30,000
Loss of future income 45,360 70,560
Future medical expenses 15,000 15,000
Total 122,360 196,560
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.196,560/-.
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 1.4.2022 passed by
this Court, the claimant is not entitled for interest for
the delayed period of 207 days in filing the appeal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
