Karnataka High Court
K. Srilatha vs Rakesh Kumar Goswami And Anr on 22 March, 2022
Bench: Ashok S. Kinagi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MFA No.201653 OF 2021 (MV)
BETWEEN:
K. SRILATHA,
W/O K. SRINIVASULU,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS (NOW NIL)
R/O H.NO.4-286, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY,
MAKTHAL, DIST: MEHABUB NAGAR,
NOW RESIDING AT SAIDAPUR,
YADGIR TALUK & DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAKESH KUMAR GOSWAMI,
S/O SHRI KRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF LORRY
BEARING REGN.NO.UP-32/CZ-2163,
R/O H.NO.134, POST VIKRU,
KHANJATI BHIAPUR,
DIST: KHANPUR
(UTTAR PRADESH) - 389-230.
2. THE MANAGER / LEGAL OFFICER,
SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
NO.3/5, 3RD FLOOR, S.V. ARCHADE,
BILEKAHALLIMAIN ROAD,
2
BANNERUGHATTA ROAD,
IIM POST, BENGALORE-560 076.
... RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DTD:18.01.2022;
BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V.ACT PRAYING TO THE
APPEAL, THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.04.2019
IN MVC NO.188/2017 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & MACT-II, AT YADGIR, MAY KINDLY BE MODIFIED
BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE
CLAIM PETITION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the petitioner under
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short
'the Act') aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
20.04.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and
C.J.M., Yadgir (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal') in MVC No.188/2017.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Claims
Tribunal. Appellant is the petitioner and respondents
are the respondents before the Tribunal.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are
as under:
On 14.12.2012 the petitioner and others were
proceeding in Santro Car bearing registration No.AP-
22/F-6908 from Alampur to Makthal driven by the
husband of petitioner very slowly and cautiously, at
about 9.10 p.m, when they were near Tekulapally
vilalge limits on Makthal-Hydrebad main road, at that
time, the driver of Lorry bearing registration No.UP-
32/CZ-2163 drove his lorry in rash and negligent
manner in a high speed from opposite direction
dashed to the car, due to which petitioner and her
husband sustained grievous injuries and was
hospitalized and spent huge amount for medical
treatment. Hence, the petitioner filed claim petition
under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, seeking
compensation due to the injuries sustained in the road
traffic accident.
4. The respondent No.1 did not appear before
the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed
ex-parte. Respondent No.2 filed statement of
objection denying the averments made in the claim
petition. It is contended that the driver of the
offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective
driving licence as on the date of accident. Further,
contended that the owner and insurer of the car
bearing No.AP-22/F-6908 are also necessary parties
to the proceedings and prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings
of the parties framed the following issues:
i. Whether the petitioner proves that, on
14-12-2012 the petitioner and others
were proceeding in Santro Car bearing
No.AP-22/F-6908 towards Makthal from
Alampur, the driver of said car was
driving very slowly and cautiously on
the extreme left side of the main road,
at about 9.10 p.m., when they were
near Tekulapally village limits on
Makthal-Hyderabad main road, the
driver of Lorry bearing No.UP-32-CZ-
2163 drove his lorry in rash and
negligent manner and in high speed
and dashed to the Santro car, due to
which the petitioner sustained grievous
injuries in the alleged accident?
ii. Whether respondent No.2 proves that
the driver of alleged Lorry was not
holding valid and effective driving
licence at the time of accident?
iii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to
the compensation? If so, what rate and
against whom?
iv. What award or order?
6. The petitioner in order to prove her case,
examined herself as PW.1 and in order to prove the
disability, examined the doctor as PW.3 and got
marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. On the
other hand, respondents have not adduced any oral or
documentary evidence. The Tribunal, after recording
the evidence and considering the material on record,
held that petitioner has proved that, she met with an
accident on 14.12.2012, and the accident was
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending vehicle and further, held that
petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the
alleged accident. Further held that respondent No.2
has failed to prove that the driver of the alleged lorry
was not holding valid and effective driving licence at
the time of accident and further held that petitioner is
entitled for a compensation and consequently allowed
the petition in part and awarded a compensation of
Rs.11,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.,
from the date of petition till its realization. Being
dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 -
Insurance Company.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on
the lower side and further submits that, in the
absence of income proof, the Tribunal has taken the
income of the petitioner at Rs.5,000/- per month
which is on the lower side. He further submits that, in
order to establish the permanent disability petitioner
examined the doctor as PW-3, who has opined that
petitioner had suffered disability at 70% to the whole
body, wherein the Tribunal has assessed the disability
at 30%, which is on the lower side. He further
submits that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under the other heads is on the lower side.
On these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 - Insurance Company supports the
impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal
and submits that compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable, does not call for any
interference and prays to dismiss the appeal.
10. Perused the records and considered the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties.
11. The point that arises for consideration is
with regard to quantum of compensation.
12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner met
with an accident on 14.12.2012 and sustained
grievous injuries. 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 the copy of FIR and chargesheet marked as
Ex.P1 and Ex.P4. Ex.P4 discloses that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the bus.
13. Insofar as quantum of compensation is
concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that, she
was doing a business and earning Rs.30,000/- per
month. In order to establish the income of the
petitioner, the petitioner did not produce any evidence
with regard to her 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 2012, the
notional income of the petitioner will have to be taken
at Rs.6,500/- as against Rs.5,000/- per month taken
by the Tribunal. PW.3-Doctor has issued disability
certificate as per Ex.P10 assessing the disability at
70% to the whole body and petitioner has produced
medical records i.e., X-ray report, CT Scan report, X-
ray film and etc. Considering the medical records
produced by the petitioner and the evidence of PW.3,
the disability taken by the Tribunal at 30% to the
whole body is on the lower side and the same is
required to be enhanced to 40%. Taking into account
the age of the petitioner who was 32 years at the time
of accident, multiplier of "16" has to be adopted.
Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to
compensation towards loss of future income at
Rs.4,99,200/- (Rs.6,500/- X 12 X 16 X 40%).
14. 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 Court
Tribunal
Loss of future income 2,88,300/- 4,99,200/-
Pain and sufferings 45,000/- 60,000/-
Conveyance Charges 10,000/- 15,000/-
Nourishment food
10,000/- 15,000/-
charges
Loss of amenities 10,000/- 40,000/-
Attendant charges 4,200/- 10,000/-
Loss of earning
during treatment 4,200/- 19,500/-
period
Medical expenses 7,78,985/- 7,78,985/-
Total 11,50,685/-
14,37,685/
Rounded off 11,51,000/-
Enhanced by this Court Rs.2,86,685/-
Thus, the petitioner is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.14,37,685/- as against
Rs.11,51,000/-. The petitioner is entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.2,86,685/-.
15. 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 to an enhanced compensation of
Rs.2,86,685/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization.
iii. The 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.
SD/-
JUDGE
GRD
