Smt Chandramma vs Sri Ranganatha
2022 Latest Caselaw 7751 Kant

                        1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022

                     BEFORE

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

          MFA No.8013 OF 2018 (MV)

BETWEEN:

SMT. CHANDRAMMA,
W/O D.N.SHIVAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST & LABOUR,
R/O DALAVAYI KATTE VILLAGE,
SRIRAMPURA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 527.
                                  ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.JAGADEESH D.C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   SRI. RANGANATHA,
     S/O BALARAMAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
     AGRICULTURIST,
     R/AT THOTADAMANE VILLAGE,
     SRIRAMPURA HOBLI,
     HOSADURGA TALUK,
     CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 527.

2.   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
     UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                          2



     DIVISIONAL OFFICER, M.M.K. COMPLEX,
     2ND FLOOR, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD,
     P J EXTENSION,
     DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
                                 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
    NOTICE TO R1 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)


     THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1)
OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 17/07/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.644/2017,
ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC., & MACT, HOSADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 17.07.2018 passed

by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T, at

Hosadurga (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in

MVC No.644/2017, whereby the Tribunal has granted

a compensation of Rs.1,89,000/- along with interest

at the rate of 6% p.a.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 04.09.2016 at about 3.30

p.m. when he was proceeding in his TVS XL

motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-16-EE-1973 as a pillion

rider along with friend Chandrashekhara as a rider in

front of Saw Mill Rajjana's house in Srirampura village

at 3.30 p.m., at that time the rider of the motor cycle

has driven the same in a rash and negligent manner

and at a high speed as a result, the motor cycle was

upside and got turtled. The claimant fell down and

sustained fracture and she was shifted to Government

Hospital Srirampura and then shifted to Government

Hospital, Hosadurga.

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, respondent No.2

appeared through counsel and filed objection

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. It was

further pleaded that the accident was due to the rash

and negligent riding of the vehicle by the rider of the

motorcycle. 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. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

The respondent No.1 remained absent and was

placed ex-parte.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded the evidence. The claimant got herself

examined as PW-1 and Dr.Sridhar was examined as

PW-2 and got exhibited documents, namely, Exs.P1 to

P.13. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was

examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents,

namely, Ex.R1 and Ex.R.2. 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.1,89,000/- along with interest at

the rate of 6% p.a. and directed respondent Nos.1

and 2 to deposit the compensation amount along with

interest jointly and severally. Being aggrieved, this

appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the claimant has

raised the following contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that she

was doing agricultural work and earning Rs.5,00,000/-

per annum, but the Tribunal has taken the notional

income as merely as Rs.6,000/- per month.

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

evidence that the claimant has suffered permanent

disability of 44.66% to lower limb. The Tribunal has

assessed the whole body disability of 11.5%, which is

on the lower side.

Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. She has suffered lot of

pain during treatment. She has suffered disability and

unhappiness through out her life. Considering the

same, the compensation granted by the Tribunal

under the heads 'loss of amenities', 'pain and

sufferings' and other heads is on the lower side. The

Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation under

the head of 'food, nourishment and attendant

charges'. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for

the Insurance Company has raised following counter

contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that she

was earning Rs.5,00,000/- per annum from

agriculture, she has not produced any documents

much less bank statement to show that she was

earning Rs.5,00,000/- per annum. Therefore, the

Tribunal has rightly assessed the notional income of

the claimant as Rs.6,000/- p.m.

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

evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of

44.66% to the lower limb but he has not assessed the

whole body disability. The Tribunal considering the

evidence of doctor and the wound certificate, has

rightly assessed the whole body disability at 11.5%.

Lastly, considering that the injuries suffered by

the claimant are minor in nature and she was not

hospitalized and considering the injuries suffered by

the claimant and the wound certificate, the overall

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and

reasonable. 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 she was earning

Rs.5,00,000/ per annum. She has not produced any

documents to prove her 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 the accident, the claimant has suffered

permanent disability. She has suffered fracture of both

bones of right leg at ankle joint and abrasion on right

foot. She has examined the doctor as PW.2. In his

evidence he has deposed that the claimant has

suffered permanent disability of 44.66% to lower limb.

Considering the evidence of Dr. Sridhar - PW2 and the

wound certificate at Ex.P7 and the disability certificate

produced at Ex.P10, I am of the opinion that the

whole body disability can be assessed at 15%. The

claimant was aged about 38 years at the time of the

accident and multiplier applicable to her age group is

'15'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation

of Rs.2,56,500/- (Rs.9,500/- X 12 X 15 X 15%) under

the head of 'loss of future earnings'.

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered

the above said injuries. She has suffered lot of pain

during treatment and has to suffer unhappiness

through out her life. Considering the evidence of the

doctor and the wound certificate, the claimant is

entitled an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- under the

head 'food and nourishment'. 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 35,000/- 35,000/- Loss of amenities and 30,000/- 30,000/- happiness and frustration of life Loss of future earnings 1,24,000/- 2,56,500/-

Food and nourishment             -               10,000/-
                Total        1,89,000/-       3,31,500/-

11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in

part. The judgment of the Tribunal is modified.

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation

of 3,31,500/-.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the compensation amount along with interest @ 6%

p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the

date of realization, within a period of six weeks from

the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

The Tribunal is directed to release the

compensation amount along with interest in favour of

the claimant after due verification.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SSB