Karnataka High Court
Chandra vs Syed Ghouse on 14 December, 2023
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45544
MFA No. 636 of 2022
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. 636 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
CHANDRA,
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
NOW AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT BEHIND VENKATARAMANASWAMY
TEMPLE, 12TH WARD DODDAHATTI,
MADHUGIRI TOWN,
MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAGHU R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SYED GHOUSE,
S/O SREENIVASAMURTHY,
NOW AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
Digitally signed
R/AT BENKIPURA,
by MADHUGIRI TOWN,
DHANALAKSHMI
MURTHY MADHUGIRI TALUK,
Location: High TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 132.
Court of
Karnataka
2. THE MANAGER
THE RELIANCE GEN.CO.LTD.,
BALAJI TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR,
ASHOKA NAGAR,
B.H. ROAD,
TUMAKURU - 572 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH, VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.12.2023)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45544
MFA No. 636 of 2022
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED.30.11.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1187/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU, SITTING AT MADHUGIRI,
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
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 30.11.2021 passed by the IV Additional
District Judge and MACT., Tumakuru, sitting at Madhugiri
in MVC No.1187/2019.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 01.08.2019 the claimant was
proceeding on his motorcycle Bajaj CT-100 bearing
registration No.KA-06/W-7276 on the left side of the road
from Madhugiri towards Hosakere village wearing helmet;
NC: 2023:KHC:45544
at that time, one motor cycle TVS Star City bearing
registration No.KA-64-L-3881 being ridden by its rider at
a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner from the
side of Vaderahalli, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant.
As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant
sustained multiple injuries and fractures 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, respondent No.1 appeared
through counsel, but did not chose to adduce any oral or
documentary evidence in support of its defence.
Respondent No.2-Insurance Company of the offending
vehicle appeared through its Counsel and filed its written
statement denying the averments made in the petition. It
NC: 2023:KHC:45544
is the specific defense of respondent No.2 that the
accident was due to the rash and negligent riding 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.
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. T.N. Ramakrishna was examined as PW-2 and
got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. On
behalf of the respondents, neither the witness was
examined nor got exhibited any document. The Claims
Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that
NC: 2023:KHC:45544
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.2,65,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
and directed respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation
amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal
has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant has raised
the following contentions:
a) Firstly, due to the accident, the claimant has suffered
grievous injuries. The doctor has been examined as
P.W.2. In his evidence, he has deposed that the claimant
has suffered 33% disability to the left lower limb and 11%
disability to the whole body, but the Tribunal has assessed
the disability at 8% which is on the lower side.
b) Secondly, even though the claimant claims that he was
doing mason work and earning Rs.20,000/- per month,
NC: 2023:KHC:45544
but the Tribunal has assessed the notional income as
merely as Rs.9,000/- per month.
c) Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has suffered
grievous injuries. He was treated as in-patient for a
period of 5 days. He has suffered lot of pain and
sufferings during the treatment period. He has to suffer
disability and unhappiness throughout his life. Even after
discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to
discharge his regular work. 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. Hence, he sought for allowing the
appeal.
7. On the other hand, Sri B. Pradeep, learned
counsel appearing 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 his income. Therefore, the Tribunal
NC: 2023:KHC:45544
has rightly assessed the notional income of the claimant as
Rs.9,000/- per month.
b) Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence
that the claimant has suffered disability of 11% to the
whole body. The Tribunal considering the evidence of the
doctor and medical records, has rightly assessed the whole
body disability at 8%.
c) Lastly, considering the injuries sustained by the
claimant, his age and avocation, the overall compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable
compensation. 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 that occurred
on 01.08.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver.
NC: 2023:KHC:45544
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 2019, the notional income has to
be taken at Rs.14,000/- p.m.
As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained
grievous injuries and fractures. PW-2, the doctor has
stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered
disability of 33% to left lower limb and 11% to whole
body. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition
of the doctor/PW-2, injuries mentioned in the wound
certificate, age and avocation of the claimant, I am of the
opinion that the whole body disability can be assessed at
11%. At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged
about 37 years and multiplier applicable to his age group
is '15'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of
NC: 2023:KHC:45544
Rs.2,77,200/- (Rs.14,000 x 12 x 15 x 11% 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
two months. He has to suffer disability and unhappiness
throughout his life and hence, I am inclined to enhance
the compensation awarded under the head pain and
suffering from Rs.9,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and loss of
income during the laid-up period for two months, i.e.,
Rs.28,000/-. 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 'loss of amenities' from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.30,000/-
Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and
reasonable.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45544
10. 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 9,000 40,000
Medical expenses 77,478 77,478
Food, nourishment, 5,000 5,000
conveyance and
attendant charges 5,000 5,000
Loss of income during 9,000 28,000
laid up period
Loss of amenities 15,000 30,000
Loss of future income 129,600 277,200
Future medical expenses 15,000 15,000
Total 265,078 477,678
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45544
The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of
Rs. 4,77,678/-.
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
