Karnataka High Court

Imran Pasha vs Pratap M on 3 November, 2022

Bench: H T Prasad

                            1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

                          BEFORE

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

              MFA No.5260 OF 2020(MV)
BETWEEN:

IMRAN PASHA
S/O MUBARAK
NOW AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
R/A NO.59, INDADIYA MOHALLA
KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
                                         ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAGHU R., ADV)

AND:

1.     PRATAP M
       MAJOR, S/O MANJUNATH Y V
       R/A 1ST MAIN ROAD
       2ND CROSS, JAVEREGOWDANAGAR
       RR NAGAR, BANGALORE-560098.

2.     THE MANAGER
       M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD
       DIVISIONAL OFFICE VII
       SHREE SAYREERAM TOWER
       4TH FLOOR, NO.24
       SRI K PUTTANNA CETTY ROAD
       5TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET
       BANGALORE-560018.
                                      ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.H.C.VRUSHABENDREAIAH, ADV. FOR R2:
    NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DATED: 03.11.2022)
                             2




     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
21.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1234/2018 ON THE FILE
OF THE XXI ACMM AND XXIII ASCJ, MACT, BENGALURU
SCCH-25, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND 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 dated 21.02.2019 passed by XXI

A.C.M.M. & XXIII A.S.C.J., Bengaluru in MVC

No.1234/2018.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 04.02.2018 at about 10.00

p.m., the claimant along with one Sri Mohammed

Imran @ Imran, who was driving a Luggage Auto

Rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-06-B-7072 were

traveling in the said vehicle on Bengaluru - Mangaluru

road NH-75. At that time, near Madagondanahalli, the

driver of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-41-B-

4830 drove the same with high speed and in a rash

and negligent manner so as to endanger to human life

and dashed against the said Luggage Auto of the

claimant from back side. 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 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. 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-2, another witness was examined as

PW-3 and Dr.A.Somashekara was examined as PW-4

and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P26.

On behalf of the respondents, no witness was

examined but got exhibited a document namely

Ex.R1. 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.3,00,800/- 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, the present appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the claimant has

raised the following contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he

was working as a Mechanic and earning Rs.30,000/-

per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional

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

Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as

inpatient for a period of 3 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 awarded by the Tribunal under the

heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and

other incidental expenses are on the lower side.

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 he

was earning Rs.30,000/- 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, the injuries suffered by the claimant

are minor in nature. 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 and it does not call

for interference.

Thirdly, in view of the Division Bench decision of

this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others

-v- Venkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and

connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the

rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 8% p.a. on

the compensation amount is on the higher side.

Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

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.30,000/- per month. He has not produced any

documents to prove his income. Therefore, in the

absence of proof of income, notional income has to be

assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the

Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the

accident taken place in the year 2018, the notional

income has to be taken at Rs.12,500/- p.m.

As per wound certificate, the claimant has

sustained lacerated wound over the occipital area,

tenderness over right shoulder. He has examined the

doctor as PW-4. Therefore, taking into consideration

the deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in

the wound certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken

the whole body disability at 8%. The claimant is aged

about 18 years at the time of the accident and

multiplier applicable to his age group is '18'. Thus, the

claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,16,000/-

(Rs.12500*12*18*8%) 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 3 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for

compensation of Rs.37,500/- (Rs.12,500*3 months)

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

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered

grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. was

treated as inpatient for more than 3 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 'loss of amenities' from

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

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 40,000 40,000 Medical expenses 32,237 32,237 Food, nourishment, 20,000 20,000 conveyance and attendant charges Loss of income during 18,000 37,500 laid up period Loss of amenities 20,000 30,000 Loss of future income 1,55,520 216,000 Future Medical Expenses 15,000 15,000 Total 3,00,757 3,90,737 Rounded of 3,00,800 3,90,700

11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in

part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

The claimants are entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.3,90,700/- as against

Rs.3,00,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

enhanced 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.

In view of the order dated 03.11.2022 passed by

this Court, the claimant is not entitled for interest for