Karnataka High Court
Sri Ajjaiah @ Ajjappa vs Sri H B Shivanna on 29 June, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.4405 OF 2020(MV)
BETWEEN:
Sri. Ajjaiah @ Ajjappa,
S/o Chandrappa,
Aged about 24 years,
Agriculturist,
R/at Doddaghatta Village,
Hosadurga taluk-577527,
Now R/o Gilikenahally Village,
Holalkere Taluk,
Chitradurga Dist-577501. ... Appellant
(By Sri.Manjunath N.D., Advocate)
AND:
1. Sri. H.B. Shivanna,
S/o Late Basappa,
Aged about 41 years,
R/o A.D. Colony Holalkere Taluk.
2. The Divisional Manager,
The National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
1st Floor, Jagalur Mahalingappa Towers,
Davanagere Road,
Chitradurga-577501. ... Respondents
(By Sri.Janardhana Reddy, Advocate for R2:
Notice to R1 is dispensed with)
2
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:14.08.2019 passed
in MVC No.1226/2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC, Holalkere, partly allowing the claim petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This MFA, coming on for orders day, this 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 14.08.2019 passed
by MACT, Holalkere in MVC No.1226/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 14.06.2017 at about 1.15
p.m., the claimant was proceeding in motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-16/EF-0891 to
Bommanakatte village. When he reached near
Uganekatte Vaddarahatty - Avinahatty village on SH-
47 road, at that time, Tata Ace vehicle bearing
registration No.KA-16/B-5596 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 respondent Nos.1
and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written
statement in which the averments made in the
petition were denied. The age, avocation and income
of the claimant and the medical expenses are 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.Ambarish was examined as
PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to
Ex.P11. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was
examined but got exhibited document namely Ex.R1.
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.1,69,540/- along with
interest @ 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance
Company to deposit the compensation amount along
with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been
filed.
6. Sri Manjunath N.D., the learned counsel for
the claimant has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he
was doing agriculture and milk vending and earning
Rs.20,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the
notional income as only Rs.6,000/- per month.
Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his
evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of
44% to both the limbs and whole body disability
assessed by the Tribunal at 11% is on the lower side.
Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has
sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as
inpatient for a period of 8 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 and he has to suffer the disability
and unhappiness throughout his life. Considering the
same, the compensation granted by the Tribunal
under the heads of 'pain and sufferings', 'loss of
amenities' and other incidental expenses heads are on
the lower side. Hence, he sought for enhancement of
compensation.
7. On the other hand, Sri Janardhan Reddy,
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-2, the doctor has stated in his
evidence that the claimant has suffered thumb
disability at 34%. 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. Hence,
he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the judgment and award.
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 2017, the notional income has to be
taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m. Due to the accident, the
claimant has sustained compound communited
fracture of left patella and fracture of middle phalanx
of left ring finger. PW-2, the doctor has stated in his
evidence that the claimant has suffered physical
disability upto 44% to both the limbs and 34%
disability to thumb finger. Taking into consideration
the evidence of the doctor and considering the injuries
suffered by the claimant, I am of the opinion that the
whole body disability has to be assessed as 14%. The
claimant was aged about 21 years at the time of the
accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is
'18'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation
of Rs.3,32,640/- (Rs.11,000*12*18*14%) on account
of 'loss of future income'.
Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered
grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He was
treated as inpatient for more than 8 days in the
hospital and thereafter, has received further
treatment. He has suffered lot of pain during
treatment and he has to suffer with the disability and
unhappiness throughout his life. Considering the
same, I am inclined to enhance the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and
sufferings' from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.35,000/-, 'loss of
amenities' from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/-, 'loss of
income during laid-up period' for a period of two
months, i.e., Rs. 22,000/- (Rs.11,000*2).
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 35,000
Medical expenses 14,500 14,500
Food, nourishment, 15,000 15,000
conveyance and
attendant charges
Loss of income during 10,000 22,000
laid up period
Loss of amenities 10,000 25,000
Loss of future income 95,040 3,32,640
Total 1,69,540 4,44,140
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.4,44,140/- as against Rs.1,69,540/- awarded by
the Tribunal.
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
Cm/-
