Karnataka High Court

Nagarajaiah vs Anitha Ravi 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.9679 OF 2018(MV)

BETWEEN

NAGARAJAIAH
S/O ANJANPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.3/2,
VENKATESHWARA NILAYA,
THINDLU MAIN ROAD,
VIRUPAKSHAPURA LAYOUT,
KODIGEHALLI,
BENGALURU-560097.
                                        ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GURUDEV PRASAD K T, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 . ANITHA RAVI
    W/O RAVI,
    NO.26/B, 1ST CROSS,
    CHALUKYA LAYOUT,
    NAGAWARA,
    BENGALURU-560045.

2 . RELIANCE GIC LTD
    REGIONAL OFFICE,
    NO.28, 5TH FLOOR,
    CENTENARY BUILDING,
                           2



  M.G.ROAD,
  BENGALURU-560001.
                                    ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI THRIMURTHY K.P, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI D.VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02/07/2018, PASSED
IN MVC NO.380/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIV ACMM., MEMBER, MACT,
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-20), PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

    THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING 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 02.07.2018 passed

by the V Additional Small Causes Judge & XXIV ACMM,

Member, MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.380/2017.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 03.09.2016 at about 12.00

Noon, when the claimant was standing on the extreme

left side on Ring Road, Near Hebbal Circle, Bengaluru,

at that time, a Car bearing Registration No.KA-04-MF-

8703, came from Nagawara side in a rash and

negligent manner, endangering to human life, and

dashed against 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 have appeared through counsel and filed written

statement in which the averments made in the

petition were denied. It was pleaded by respondent

No.1 that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the

eye of law. 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.

It was pleaded by respondent No.2 that the

liability is subject to terms and conditions of the

policy. Respondent No.1 has not complied with

statutory demand. 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, they 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. Prakashappa was

examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents

namely Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17. On behalf of the

respondents, neither examined any witness nor

exhibited any document on their behalf. 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.1,90,000/- along with

interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the

Insurance Company to deposit the compensation

amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this

appeal has been filed.

6. Sri Gurudev Prasad, learned counsel for the

claimant has raised the following contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he

was working as TATA ACE Driver and earning

Rs.20,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the

notional income as merely as Rs.9,000/- per month.

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

evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of

20% to the whole body. But the Tribunal has erred in

taking the whole body disability at only 5%. He

further deposed that the claimant is required

Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,000/- for removal implants. But

the Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation

towards 'Future Medical Expenses'.

Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as

inpatient for a period of 25 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. The Tribunal has

failed to grant any compensation towards 'loss of

income during the laid up period'. 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.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 disability of

20% to the whole body. The Tribunal considering the

injuries sustained by the claimant, has rightly

assessed the whole body disability at 5%. The

injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature.

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.

Fourthly, even though the doctor deposed that

the claimant is required Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,000/-

for removal implants, the claimant has not produced

any document even before this Court that he has

undergone any surgery. Therefore, the Tribunal has

rightly not granted any compensation under the head

of 'future medical expenses'.

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 9% 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 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 2016, the notional income has to be

taken at Rs.9,500/- p.m.

Due to accident, the claimant has sustained

fracture of both bone left leg which is grievous in

nature. PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence

that the claimant has suffered disability of 20% to the

whole body. Therefore, taking into consideration the

deposition of the doctor, PW-2 and injuries suffered

by the claimant, I am of the opinion that the whole

body disability can be assessed 10%. The claimant is

aged about 70 years at the time of the accident and

multiplier applicable to his age group is '5'. Thus,

the claimant is entitled for compensation of

Rs.57,000/- (Rs.9,500*12*5*10%) on account of 'loss

of future income'.

The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant

must have been under rest and treatment for a period

of three months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for

compensation of Rs.28,500/- (Rs.9,500*3 months)

under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.

The claimant was treated as inpatient for more

than 25 days in the hospital and thereafter, has

received further treatment. Hence, I am inclined to

enhance the compensation awarded under the head of

'conveyance, nourishment and attendance charges'

from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/-.

Even though the doctor deposed that the

claimant is required Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,000/- for

removal implants, no document has been produced

even before this Court that he has undergone any

surgery. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not

granted any compensation under the head of 'future

medical expenses'.

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 75,000 75,000 Medical expenses 42,468 42,468 Food, nourishment, 20,000 30,000 conveyance and attendant charges Loss of income during 0 28,500 laid up period Loss of amenities 25,000 25,000 Loss of future income 27,000 57,000 Total 1,89,468 2,57,968 * The Tribunal has rounded of the award amount from Rs.1,89,468/- to 1,90,000/-

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.2,57,968/- as against Rs.1,90,000/-.

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 @ 9%

p.a. (enhanced compensation amount shall carry

interest at 6% per annum) from the date of filing of