Karnataka High Court
Ranganantha.K.T vs Pradeep.S on 14 December, 2023
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45547
MFA No. 4861 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4861 OF 2023(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
RANGANATHA K.T.,
S/O THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
SAKALESHPURA TALUK - 573 211,
PRESENTLY R/O SOWMYACHANNAKESHAVA NILAYA,
HEMAVATHI NAGARA MAIN ROAD,
SARASWATHIPURAM,
HASSAN - 573 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SHARADAMBA A.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
1. PRADEEP S.,
by S/O B. SWAMY, MAJOR,
DHANALAKSHMI
MURTHY NAYANA KSHATHRIYA STREET,
Location: High
Court of ARAKALAGUD TOWN AND TALUK,
Karnataka
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 212.
2. THE MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
VENKATESHWARA BUILDING, B.M. ROAD,
HASSAN - 573 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH, VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.12.2023)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45547
MFA No. 4861 of 2023
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.02.2023 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1851/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT AND CJM, HASSAN,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS 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
dated 06.02.2023 passed by MACT, Hassan in MVC
No.1851/2019.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly
stated are that on 14.07.2019 at about 4.30 p.m. when
the claimant was proceeding on Hero Honda Splender Bike
bearing registration No.KA-46-L-0145 on Mallipattana
Road, Arakalgud Town, one TATA SUMO bearing
NC: 2023:KHC:45547
registration No.KA-01-AC-0427 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 fell down and 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.
4. On service of notice, the respondents appeared
through counsel and filed written statement denying the
averments made in the claim 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
NC: 2023:KHC:45547
Dr. Sreeranga N., was examined as PW-2 and got
exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P26. On behalf
of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor
any documents were got marked. 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.3,01,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the
Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount
along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal
has been filed.
6. Smt. Sharadamba D.R., learned counsel for the
claimant has raised the following contentions:
a) Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was
doing agricultural work and was a waterman in Grama
Panchayath and earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but the
NC: 2023:KHC:45547
Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as
Rs.12,000/- 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 to the left lower limb at
knee and has underwent surgery and as such, the
claimant has difficulty in squatting, sitting in cross legs,
lifting weights, climb stairs without support, walk for long,
do hard labour and even do certain daily activities. 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 10 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
NC: 2023:KHC:45547
sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower
side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, Sri C. Shankar Reddy, learned
counsel for the Insurance Company has raised following
counter contentions:
a) Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was
earning Rs.20,000/- per month, he has not produced any
documents to establish the same. 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 medical records produced by
the claimant such as wound certificate - Ex.P.6 and
discharge summary, the age and avocation of the
claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under
NC: 2023:KHC:45547
the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and
other incidental expenses are just and reasonable and it
does not call for interference. 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 14.07.2019
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
by its driver.
10. The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/-
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 2019, the notional
income has to be taken at Rs.14,000/- p.m.
NC: 2023:KHC:45547
11. As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained
injuries to the left lower limb at knee. Therefore, he is
unable to squat, sit with cross legs, lift weights, climb
stairs without support, walk for long, do hard work or even
do certain daily activities. The doctor in his evidence has
stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 30% to
particular limb and 10% to whole body. 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 was aged about 41 years at the time of the
accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '14'.
Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of
Rs.2,35,200/- (Rs.14,000/- x 12 x 14 x 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 three
months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for
NC: 2023:KHC:45547
enhancement of compensation from Rs.14,000/- to
Rs.42,000/-(Rs.14,000 x 3 months) under the head 'loss
of income during laid up period'.
13. The claimant was treated as inpatient for more than 10
days in the hospital and thereafter, has received further
treatment. Hence, I am inclined to enhance the
compensation awarded under the head of 'food,
nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges' from
Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/-.
14. 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
under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.30,000/- to
Rs.45,000/-.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45547
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 55,000 55,000
Loss of amenities 30,000 45,000
Loss of future income 2,02,000 2,35,200
Loss of income during 12,000 42,000
laid up period
Nourishment, 2,000 10,000
conveyance and
attendant charges
Total 3,01,000 3,87,200
17. In the result, the following order is passed:
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45547
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.3,87,200/-.
d) 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.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NSU
CT:SNN
