Karnataka High Court

V Chidanandachari vs Reliance General Insurance ... on 26 May, 2022

Bench: H T Prasad

                        1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2022

                     BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

           MFA No.999 OF 2021(MV)

BETWEEN

V CHIDANANDACHARI
S/O LATE VEERACHARI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
CARPENTER AND AGRICULTURIST
UDOGERE VILLAGE
NOW R/O KELAGOTE, C K PURA
CHITRADURGA-577001
                                      ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
      REP. BY ITS MANAGER
      1ST FLOOR, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND
      B.D. ROAD
      CHITRADURGA-577001

2.    OBALESHA
      S/O BASAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
      RC. OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE
      NO.KA-16/W-0717
      R/O VADDARA SIDDAVVANAHALLY
      CHITRADURGA TALUK-577001
                             2




3.   C. MANJANNA
     S/O CHANNAPPA
     MAJOR
     POLICY HOLDER OF MOTOR CYCLE
     NO.KA-16/W-0717
     R/O MALAPPANAHATTY
     13TH CROSS
     CHITRADURGA-577001
                                    ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

      THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.05.2020 PASSED
IN MVC NO.701/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR
CIVIL   JUDGE    AND    CJM,  ADDITIONAL    MACT-III,
CHITRADURGA PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR    COMPENSATION     SEEKING    ENHANCEMENT    OF
COMPENSATION.

    THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS 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 and decree dated 12.05.2020 passed

by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM,

Chitradurga in MVC No.701/2019.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 26.03.2019 at about 03.00

P.M., when the claimant was proceeding on the left

side of the road by walk to Kagalagere Village,

Holalkere Taluk, at that time, the rider of the

motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-16/W-0717

rode the same from back side in a rash and negligent

manner with high speed and dashed to both legs 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 riding of the offending vehicle by

its rider.

4. On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1

to 3 have appeared through counsel but respondent

No.1/Insurance Company only filed written statement

in which the averments made in the petition were

denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false

and frivolous in the eye of law. The rider of the

offending vehicle did not have valid driving licence as

on the date of the accident. The liability is subject to

terms and conditions of the policy. The age, avocation

and income of the claimant and the medical expenses

are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum

of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant.

Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

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. Channa Reddy was

examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents

namely Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. On behalf of the

respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and

got exhibited documents namely Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4. The

Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia,

held that the accident took place on account of rash

and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its

rider, as a result of which, the claimant sustained

injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is

entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,67,108/- along with

interest at the rate of 8% p.a. and directed the

Insurance Company to deposit the compensation

amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this

appeal has been filed.

6. Sri Spoorthy Hegde N, learned counsel for

the claimant has raised the following contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he

was doing carpenter work and was earning

Rs.30,000/- per month and also doing agriculture and

was getting Rs.3,00,000/- per annum but the Tribunal

has taken the notional income as merely as

Rs.8,000/- per month.

Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his

evidence that the claimant has suffered physical

disability of 53% to both lower limbs. But the Tribunal

has erred in taking the whole body disability at only

15%.

Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as

inpatient for a period of 5 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 enhancement of compensation.

7. Per contra, Sri D. Vijaykumar, learned

counsel for the Insurance Company has raised

following counter contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he

was earning Rs.3,00,000/- per annum, 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 physical

disability of 53% to both lower limbs. The Tribunal

considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, has

rightly assessed the whole body disability at 15%.

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.

Lastly, in view of judgment of the Division Bench

of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND

OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA

5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on

24.8.2020), the claimants are entitled for 6% interest

but the Tribunal has granted 8% interest is on the

higher side. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the

appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the records.

9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has

sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred

due to rash and negligent riding of the offending

vehicle by its rider.

The claimant claims that he was earning

Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. 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 2019, the notional income has to be taken

at Rs.14,000/- p.m.

As per wound certificate, the claimant has

sustained fracture of B/L calcaneum, C/o.pain in both

ankles and leg, blunt injury to both arms and back

and injuries to the other parts of the body. PW-2, the

doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has

suffered physical disability of 53% to both lower

limbs. 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 15%. The claimant

is aged about 40 years at the time of the accident,

the Tribunal has rightly considered the multiplier

to his age group as '15'. Thus, the claimant is

entitled for compensation of Rs.3,78,000/-

(Rs.14,000*12*15*15%) 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 5 days in the

hospital. 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 'pain and sufferings' from

Rs.30,000/- to Rs.45,000/-.

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 30,000 45,000 Medical expenses 51,108 51,108 Food, nourishment, 10,000 10,000 conveyance and attendant charges Loss of amenities 60,000 60,000 Loss of future income 2,16,000 3,78,000 Total 3,67,108 5,44,108

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.5,44,108/- as against Rs.3,67,108/- awarded

by the Tribunal.

In view of judgment of the Division Bench of this

Court in the case of 'MS.JOYEETA BOSE', the

enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at

6% per annum.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the compensation amount along with interest @ 8%

p.a. (enhanced compensation shall carry 6% interest