Karnataka High Court
Muniraju @ P Muniraju vs Hoovanna on 2 August, 2023
Bench: H T Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:26903
MFA No. 5755 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5755 OF 2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
MUNIRAJU @ P MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
OCCUPATION: PRIEST
R/AT NO.2, NAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE
BENGALURU EAST EXTENSION
KELAGOTE, BENGALURU PIN-560066
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H ASHOK KUMAR., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by
DHANALAKSHMI
MURTHY 1. HOOVANNA
Location: High S/O MANJE GOWDA
Court of AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
Karnataka
R/AT NO.65
BITTAGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT PIN-573211.
2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LIMITED
NO.28 CENTENARY BUILDING,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:26903
MFA No. 5755 of 2018
EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR
M G ROAD,
BENGALURU PIN-560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ASHOK N PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R12:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED: 25.02.2019)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:12.05.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.661/2014 ON THE
FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE C/C 9TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU, , PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. 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
NC: 2023:KHC:26903
MFA No. 5755 of 2018
dated 12.5.2017 passed by MACT, Bengaluru in MVC
No.661/2014.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly
stated are that on 22.7.2014 when the claimant and his
family members were traveling in Innova Car No.KA-51-M-
656 from Dharmasthala to Bengaluru near Kumbaraghatte
Village, B.M.Road, Sakaleshpura Taluk, Hassan on NH-48
Highway, at that time, lorry bearing registration No.KA-
13-B-2766 being driven by its driver at a high speed and
in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle 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
charges, 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.
NC: 2023:KHC:26903
MFA No. 5755 of 2018
4. On service of notice, the respondent No.2 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. It was further pleaded that the accident was
due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the
claimant himself. The driver 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.
The respondent No.1 did not appear before the
Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-
parte.
NC: 2023:KHC:26903
MFA No. 5755 of 2018
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.Somashekar was examined as PW-2 and got
exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. On behalf
of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor
any document was produced. 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.651,800/-
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:
NC: 2023:KHC:26903
MFA No. 5755 of 2018
a) Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was
working as a Priest in a temple and earning Rs.10,000/- to
Rs.15,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the
notional income as merely as Rs.8,000/- p.m.
b) Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as
PW-2. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the
claimant has suffered disability of 30% to particular limb.
But the Tribunal has taken the whole body disability at
10%, which is on the lower side.
c) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has
sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for
a period of 30 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.
NC: 2023:KHC:26903
MFA No. 5755 of 2018
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company has raised following counter
contentions:
a) Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was
earning Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month, he has not
produced any documents to establish his income. In the
absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has rightly
assessed the income of the claimant notionally.
b) Secondly, the Tribunal considering the injuries
sustained by the claimant and evidence of the doctor, has
rightly assessed the whole body disability at 10%.
c) Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by the
claimant and considering the age and avocation of the
claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under
the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and
other incidental expenses are just and reasonable and it
does not call for interference.
d) Lastly, 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
NC: 2023:KHC:26903
MFA No. 5755 of 2018
connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the
rate of interest awarded 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 on 22.7.2014
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
by its driver.
10. The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.10,000/-
to Rs.15,000/- 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
2014, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.8,500/-
p.m.
NC: 2023:KHC:26903
MFA No. 5755 of 2018
11. As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained
mild axonal injury, multiple rib fracture of left sided with
bilateral haemothorax, right lobe of liver laceration,
fracture of mid shaft left femur, undisplaced fracture of left
tibial plateau. The doctor in his evidence has stated that
the claimant has suffered disability of 30% to particular
limb. 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
10%. The claimant is aged about 61 years at the time of
the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is
'7'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of
Rs.71,400/- (Rs.8,500*12*7*10%) on account of 'loss of
future income'.
12. 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.25,500/- (Rs.8,500*3 months) under
the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:26903
MFA No. 5755 of 2018
13. The claimant was treated as inpatient for more than
30 days in the hospital and thereafter, has received
further treatment. Due to the accident, the claimant has
suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. 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.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/-
and under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.30,000/-
to Rs.40,000/-.
14. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the
claimant requires about Rs.50,000/- for exchange of nail.
But the claimant has not produced any estimation of
future surgery. Considering the nature of injuries and
evidence of doctor, I am inclined to enhance the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of
'future medical expenses' from Rs.20,000/- to
Rs.30,000/-.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:26903
MFA No. 5755 of 2018
15. Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and
reasonable.
16. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following
compensation:
As awarded As awarded
by the by this
Compensation under Tribunal Court
different Heads
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings 50,000 60,000
Medical expenses 440,600 440,600
Food, nourishment, 20,000 20,000
conveyance and
attendant charges
Loss of income during 24,000 25,500
laid up period
Loss of amenities 30,000 40,000
Loss of future income 67,200 71,400
Future medical expenses 20,000 30,000
Total 651,800 687,500
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:26903
MFA No. 5755 of 2018
17. In the result, I pass the following order:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is
modified.
c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation
of Rs.687,500/-.
d) In view of judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of 'MS.JOYEETA BOSE' (supra),
the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at
6% per annum.
e) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest 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 excluding interest
for the compensation awarded under the head of
'future medical expenses'.
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:26903
MFA No. 5755 of 2018
f) In view of the order dated 6.6.2023 passed by
this Court, the claimant is not entitled for interest for
the delayed period of 304 days in filing the appeal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
