Karnataka High Court
Bhaskar Rao H R vs V Muniyappa on 7 March, 2022
Bench: J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
M.F.A.NO.8375/2019 (MV)
BETWEEN:
BHASKAR RAO H.R.
S/O RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT WARD NO.19
RAMAKRISHNA WARD
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN
KOLAR DISTRICT
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI KAILAS SHANKAR P.S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. V.MUNIYAPPA
S/O VENKATAGIRIYAPPA
MAJOR
R/AT DODDABANDARLAHALLI VILLAGE
KASHETTIPALLI POST
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN
KOLAR DISTRICT
2. THE MANAGER
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE
NO.18, KRISHI BHAVAN
5TH FLOOR, OPP:HUDSON CIRCLE
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SRI. N. RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. Y.K.SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORD IN THE COURT OF THE SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE BENGALURU IN MVC.NO.2045/2018 DATED
09.04.2019, PERUSE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED AND
SET ASIDE, MODIFIED AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS
PRAYED IN THE CLAIM PETITION OR GRANT SUCH OTHER
RELIEFS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
22.02.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, J.M.KHAZI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is claimant's appeal filed under Section 173(1) of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV
Act') seeking enhancement of compensation granted for the
injury sustained by the appellant/petitioner in the road
traffic accident dated 28.01.2018.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are
referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that on
28.01.2018, at about 8.00 p.m. petitioner was riding motor
cycle bearing registration No.KA 07/Q 1659 from
Rayalapadu towards Srinivasapura. When he was near
Neelaturu Cross, Srinivasapura Taluk of Kolar District, TATA
Sumo bearing registration No.KA-07/M 4323 (hereinafter
referred to as offending vehicle) came from the opposite
side in a high speed, in a rash or negligent manner from
wrong side of the road and dashed against the motor cycle
of the petitioner.
4. In the accident, petitioner sustained grievous
injuries and suffered permanent partial disability. He was
in-patient from 29.01.2018 to 14.03.2018 and claimed total
compensation in a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-.
5. As the owner and insurer of the offending
vehicle, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally
liable to pay the compensation and hence, the appeal.
6. Respondent No.1 has filed written statement
admitting that he is the owner of the offending vehicle.
However, he has contended that at the time of accident, he
was driving the vehicle cautiously and it was the petitioner
who was driving the motor cycle in rash or negligent
manner and caused the accident.
7. Respondent No.2 has filed written statement
admitting the coverage of the vehicle as on the date of
accident by a valid policy issued by it. However, it has
denied the remaining averments regarding the allegations
of rash or negligent driving by the driver of the offending
vehicle, age, occupation, nature of the injury sustained by
the petitioner and that it has resulted in permanent partial
disability of the petitioner. The compensation claimed is on
the higher side and in the event of granting compensation
the interest is to be restricted to 6% p.a.
8. In support of his claim, petitioner has examined
himself as PW-1 and one witness as PW-2. He has relied
upon Ex.P1 to 11.
9. Vide the impugned judgment and award the
Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of
Rs.2,60,603/- with interest at 8% p.a. as detailed below:
Heads Amount
In Rs.
Loss of future income 1,17,000
Pain and suffering 30,000
Medical expenses 13,603
Loss of income during laid up 30,000
period
Food and nourishment, conveyance 25,000
and attendant charges
Loss of future amenity 20,000
Future medical expenses 25,000
TOTAL 2,60,603
10. Heard arguments on behalf of learned counsel
for both parties and perused the records.
11. Petitioner has challenged the impugned
judgment and award contending that the income taken at
Rs.7,500/- is on the lower side and it should have been
Rs.20,000/- p.m. The compensation granted under the
head pain and suffering, future loss of income, loss of
income during the laid up period, conveyance, nourishment
attendance charges and future medical expenses is on the
lower side.
12. Admittedly, respondents have not challenged the
impugned judgment and award.
13. Petitioner has claimed that he is a cook by
profession and at the time of accident, he was earning
Rs.20,000/- p.m. However, he has not placed any material
on record to establish that he was earning Rs.20,000/- p.m.
In the absence of the same, notional income is to be taken.
Since the accident took place during 2018, the notional
income as per the Lok Adalath chart prepared by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority which is based on
minimum wages may be taken Rs.12,500/-. However, the
Tribunal has taken the income of the petitioner as
Rs.7,500/-. Therefore, calculations are to be made based
on Rs.12,500/- as the notional income.
14. Loss of future earnings: Claimant has led
evidence establishing that he has suffered 57% disability
and the Tribunal has taken 1/3rd of it to the whole body at
10% which is not correct. 1/3rd of it should have been 19%.
At the time of accident, the petitioner was aged 47 years
and hence the multiplier '13' taken by the Tribunal is
correct. Therefore, the loss of future earnings is Rs.12,500
x 12 x 13 x 19% = Rs.3,70,500/-.
15. Loss of income during laid up period: The
Tribunal has granted Rs.30,000/- towards loss of income
during laid up period i.e., Rs.7,500 x 4 months. Since, the
notional income is to be taken at Rs.12,500, for four
months, the compensation under the head loss of income
during the laid up period comes to Rs.50,000/-.
16. Medical expenses: Based on the medical bills,
the Tribunal has granted Rs.13,603/- under the head
medical expenses which is correct and there is no scope for
interference under the said head.
17. Pain and sufferings: Since the petitioner has
suffered fracture of the shaft of the left femur, the
compensation granted in a sum of Rs.30,000/- under the
head pain and suffering is also correct.
18. Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant
charges: Since, the petitioner is held to have taken
treatment for four months, the compensation granted under
the head food nourishment, conveyance and attendance
charges at Rs.25,000/- appears to be on the lower side and
the same is increased to Rs.35,000/-.
19. Future medical expenses: In the absence of
material regarding estimation of Rs.40,000/- towards future
medical expenses, the compensation granted in a sum of
Rs.25,000/- is correct and requires no interference. Since
the claimant has suffered fracture of shaft of the left femur
resulting in permanent partial disability, compensation
granted in a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of
amenities is on the lower side and it is increased to
Rs.30,000/-.
20. Thus, in all petitioner is entitled for
compensation in sum of Rs.5,54,103/- as detailed below:
Heads Amount Amount
granted by granted by
the Tribunal this Court
In Rs. In Rs.
Loss of future income 1,17,000 3,70,500
Pain and suffering 30,000 30,000
Medical expenses 13,603 13,603
Loss of income during laid 30,000 50,000
up period
Food and nourishment, 25,000 35,000
conveyance and attendant
charges
Loss of future amenity 20,000 30,000
Future medical expenses 25,000 25,000
Total 2,60,603 5,54,103
21. The Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of
8% p.a without any basis and therefore, it is confined to
6% p.a.
22. To this extent impugned judgment and award is
liable to be modified and accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
1. Appeal is allowed in part.
2. The impugned judgment and award dated
in MVC.No.2045/2018 dated 09.04.2019 the file
of Court of Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru is
modified by increasing the compensation to
Rs.5,54,103/- as against Rs.2,60,603/-with
interest at 6% p.a.
3. The respondent No.2 Insurance company is
directed to pay the amount along with interest to
the claimant within a period of two months
minus the compensation already paid.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RR
