Karnataka High Court
Srimanth vs Kavthale Umakanth And Anr on 5 March, 2022
Bench: Ashok S. Kinagi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MFA No.200082/2022 (MV)
Between:
Srimanth S/o Nivarthirao Hallale,
Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Morambi, Tq: Bhalki,
Dist: Bidar.
... Appellant
(By Sri Babu H. Metagudda, Advocate)
And:
1. Kavthale Umakanth S/o Karbasappa,
Age: Major, Occ: Business & Owner of
Maruti Omini No.MH-24/V-6486,
R/o M. Jawalga, Tq: Deoni,
Dist: Latur-584101 (M.S)
2. The Manager,
Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Vehranthi Malaram Towers,
No.2319 Rajiv Gandhi,
Salai (CMR) Karapadka,
Chennai-534 103.
... Respondents
(By Sri C.S.Kalburgi, Advocate for R2;
Notice to R1 is dispensed with
v/o dated 21.01.2022)
2
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the MV Act praying to allow this appeal and
modify the judgment and award dated 31.08.2021 passed
in MVC No.307/2016 by the Senior Civil Judge and
Additional M.A.C.T. at Bhalki, and enhance the
compensation from Rs.1,37,000/- with 6% interest to
Rs.14,99,000/- with 12% interest.
This appeal coming on for Admission, this day, the
Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act')
challenging the judgment and award dated 31.08.2021
passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhalki, (for short hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MVC No.307/2016.
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Tribunal. Appellant is petitioner and
respondents are respondents before the Tribunal.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are as
under:
On 01.10.2015 the petitioner along with his wife
Anjubai was returning from their garden land Morambi
on Bhalki-Basavakalyan road, when they were near the
land of one Karbasappa, offending vehicle Omini car
bearing registration No.MH-24/V-6486 came from
behind in a high speed and in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed to the petitioner who was walking
by the side of the road. As a result of the accident, the
petitioner sustained head injuries. Thereafter, petitioner
was shifted to Shree Hospital, Bidar and thereafter, he
was referred to Gangamai Hospital, Solapur. It is
contended that prior to the accident, petitioner was hale
and healthy. It is also contended that he was aged about
45 year as on the date of accident and he was doing
agricultural work and was earning monthly income of
Rs.20,000/-. Now due to fracture, petitioner is unable
to do agriculture work as of earlier. Petitioner has
suffered permanent disability and he is not in a position
to attend his agriculture work. Petitioner has spent
huge amount for his treatment. Hence, the petitioner
filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking
compensation due to the injuries sustained in the road
traffic accident. It is contended that respondent Nos.1
and 2 being the owner and insurer of the offending
vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the petitioner. Hence, prayed to allow
the claim petition.
4. Respondent No.1 did not file written
statement. Respondent No.2 filed written statement
denying the averments made in the claim petition and
also denied the age, avocation and income of the
injured. It is denied that the accident took place due to
the driver of the Omini car. It is further contended that
the said vehicle was not insured with respondent No.2
as on the date of the accident and the driver of the
offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective
driving licence as on the date of the accident. It is
contended that the owner of the offending vehicle has
violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence,
respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation and
prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of
the parties framed the following issues:
i. Whether the petitioner proves that his
sustained grievous injuries in a
accident, that occurred on 01-10-2015
at about 6.00 PM on Bhalki-
Basavakalyan Road near land of
Karbasappa Alle of Village Morambi, on
account of the rash and negligent
driving of the Maruti Suzuki Omini
bearing Reg.No.MH-24/V-6486 by its
driver?
ii. Whether the petitioner proves that he
is entitled for the compensation? To
what extent and from whom?
iii. What order or award?
6. Petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and in
order to prove the disability, examined the doctor as
PW.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P14.
Respondent No.2/Insurance company did not examine
any witness.
7. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence
and considering the material on record, recorded finding
that the petitioner has proved that he has sustained
grievous injuries in the road traffic accident which
occurred on 01.10.2015 due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and that the
petitioner is entitled for compensation and consequently,
allowed the claim petition in part and awarded
compensation of Rs.1,37,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the
date of realization and held that respondent Nos.1 and 2
are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to
the petitioner.
8. Being dissatisfied with the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner-appellant has
filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned counsel for respondentNo.2-Insurance
company.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is on the lower side. The Tribunal has taken the income
of the claimant at Rs.7,000/- per month which is on the
lower side. He submits that though the Tribunal has
accepted that the petitioner has suffered permanent
disability, but awarded lesser compensation under the
other heads. He submits that the impugned judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal is arbitrary. On these
grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
No.2-Insurance company supports the impugned
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He
submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is just and proper and does not call for any interference
by this Court and prays to dismiss the appeal.
12. I have perused the records and considered
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties. The point that arises for consideration is with
regard to quantum of compensation.
13. The occurrence of the accident and the
injuries sustained by the claimant in the said accident is
not in dispute. In order to prove that the accident has
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the offending vehicle, the petitioner has produced
copy of charge sheet which is marked as Ex.P7. From
perusal of Ex.P7, it is clear that the accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in
recording a finding that the accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending
vehicle.
14. Perusal of the impugned judgment would
indicate that the petitioner-appellant did not produce
any evidence with regard to his income before the
Tribunal. Therefore, as per the chart provided by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional
income will have to be taken into consideration. In
terms of the chart, for the accident of the year 2015, the
notional income of the petitioner will have to be taken at
Rs.8,000/- as against Rs.7,000/- per month taken by
the Tribunal. Petitioner has pleaded that he has
sustained injuries and suffered permanent disability. In
order to prove the disability, petitioner examined the
doctor as PW.2. P.W.2 on the basis of the CT scan
report and other medical records has opined that the
petitioner has sustained contusion in the Tempo parietal
region and hemorrhagic contusion in the basifrontal
lobs. P.W.2 has issued disability certificate as per Ex.P13
assessing the disability at 28% to the whole body.
Considering the evidence of P.W.2 and medical records,
the Tribunal has opined that the petitioner has suffered
permanent physical disability to an extent of 10% to the
whole body and the same is just and proper and does
not call for interference. As per the wound certificate,
the petitioner was aged about 55 years as on the date of
the accident and therefore, the applicable multiplier
would be "11". Therefore, the petitioner would be
entitled to compensation towards loss of future income
at Rs.1,05,600/- (Rs.8,000/- X 12 X 11 X 10/100).
15. Considering the nature of the injuries
sustained by the petitioner, the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the same is re-
assessed in the following manner:
Compensation awarded in
Rs.
Particulars
By the By this
Tribunal Court
Pain and sufferings 5,000/- 25,000/-
Medical expenses 80,000/- 80,000/-
Conveyance, attendant
5,000/- 30,000/-
charges and nourishment
Loss of future earning
capacity on account of 42,000/- 1,05,600/-
permanent disabilities
Amenities and
unhappiness and future 5,000/- 25,000/-
medical expenses
Loss of income during
treatment period (8,000 x - 24,000/-
3)
Total 1,37,000/- 2,89,600/
Enhanced by this Court 1,52,600/-
16. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal is modified.
The petitioner is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.2,89,600/- as
against Rs.1,37,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal. The petitioner is entitled to
an enhanced compensation of
Rs.1,52,600/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization.
iii. Respondent No.2/Insurance company is
directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation amount within a period
of eight weeks from date of the receipt
of certified copy of this judgment.
iv. The Tribunal is directed to release the
enhanced compensation amount in
favour of the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NB*
