Karnataka High Court
Sayed Noor Mohemmed vs Ramanna Gouda And Anr on 12 January, 2023
Bench: J.M.Khazi
1 MFA No.200885/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
MFA NO.200885/2021 (MV)
BETWEEN
Sayed Noormohemmed S/o Saifulal Imandar
Age: 23 Years, Occ: Driver R/o Kembhavi
Tq. Shorapur, Dist. Yadgir-585 224
...Appellant
(By Sri Sharanagouda V. Patil, Advocate)
AND
1. Ramannagouda S/o Bassangouda
Age: 40 Years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Yalagi, Tq. Shorapur, Dist. Yadgir
(Owner of offending motorcycle
Bearing No.KA-33-W-4919
2. The Divisional Manager
Tate General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Hall Marks Building, 3rd Floor JP and
Devi Jambukeshwar Arcade No.69
Bengaluru-52
...Respondents
(By Sri Sudarshan M, Advocate for R2;
Notice to R1 dispensed with V/O/Dtd. 31.08.2021)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicle
Act, 1988, praying to allow the appeal and modify the
2 MFA No.200885/2021
judgment dated 21.01.2021 passed by the Court of Senior
Civil Judge & MACT at Shorapur in MVC No.208/2019,
award dated 02.02.2021 and sought for enhancement of
Rs.14,50,000/-, in the interest of justice and equity.
This appeal coming on for Hearing, this day, the
court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Not being satisfied with the quantum of
compensation, claimant is before this Court in this
appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties
are referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that on
30.10.2018 at about 8.20 p.m. petitioner was
proceeding as a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing
Reg. No.KA-33-W-4919 (hereinafter referred to as
'offending vehicle') from Kembhavi to Yalagi. On
Yalagi road, the rider of the offending vehicle rode
the same in a rash or negligent manner, as a result of
which it turned turtle. In the said accident, the
petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Inspite of
prolonged treatment, he is not completely cured. The
injuries have resulted in permanent partial disability.
4. As the owner and insurer of the offending
vehicle respondents are jointly and severally liable to
pay the compensation.
5. Though duly served, respondent No.1
remained ex parte.
6. Respondent No.2 appeared through counsel
and filed written statement admitting the coverage of
the offending vehicle. However, it has denied the age,
occupation, income of the petitioner and also nature
of the injuries sustained and that they have resulted
in permanent and partial disability. The driver of the
offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective
driving licence and as such it is not liable to pay the
compensation.
7. Based on these pleadings, the Tribunal
framed necessary issues.
8. Petitioner got examined himself as PW.1
and the doctor as P.W.2. He has relied upon Exs.P1
to 17.
9. Respondent No.2 has not led any oral or
documentary evidence.
10. Vide the impugned judgment and award
the Tribunal has partly allowed the petition and
granted compensation in a sum of Rs.3,08,800/- with
interest at 6% per annum and directed respondent
No.2 to pay the compensation. The details of the
compensation granted are as under:
Sl.No. Compensation head Amount
awarded
1. Loss of future income Rs.1,72,800/-
2. Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/-
3. Loss of income during Rs.16,000/-
treatment
4. Medical, conveyance, Rs.90,000/-
nutritions and
attendants charges
5. Future happiness and Rs.20,000/-
amenities
Total Rs.3,08,800/-
11. Respondent No.2 has not challenged the
impugned judgment and award.
12. During the course of argument, learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that having
regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the
petitioner, the compensation granted under all the
heads is on the lower side and requires
reconsideration.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 supported the impugned judgment
and award and prays to dismiss the petition.
14. Heard arguments and perused the records.
15. The fact that as on the date of accident the
offending vehicle was covered by a valid policy issued
by respondent No.2 is not in dispute. Based on the
complaint filed in respect of the accident, after
conducting detailed investigation, the concerned police
have filed charge-sheet against the driver of the
offending vehicle. The testimony of PW.1 coupled with
the documents placed on record prove the fact that
petitioner sustained the injuries in question in the
accident involving the offending vehicle. The evidence
of P.W.2 prove the fact that due to the injuries
sustained the petitioner has suffered permanent
partial disability.
16. As on the date of the accident, petitioner
was aged 21 years. This fact is supported by his
Aadhaar Card and SSLC marks card at Exs.P.16 and
17. Therefore, the multiplier 18 taken by the Tribunal
is correct. Though petitioner has claimed that he was
earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. and produced Ex.P.15, a
certificate issued by his alleged employer, in the
absence of examining him, the Tribunal is correct in
taking income of the petitioner on notional basis.
Since the incident is of the year 2018, based on
minimum wages, the income of the petitioner ought to
have been taken at Rs.11,750/- instead of Rs.8,000/-
taken by the Tribunal.
17. Having regard to the specific grounds urged
in the appeal, it is necessary to examine whether the
compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable or it calls for interference by this Court
under the following various heads.
17.1. Pain and suffering & Loss of
amenities: The evidence of P.W.2 prove that
petitioner has sustained 60% disability of the
particular limb and therefore the whole body disability
ought to have been taken at 20% instead of 10%
taken by the tribunal. Having regard to these aspects,
the compensation granted in a sum of Rs.10,000/-
under the head pain and suffering and Rs.20,000/-
under head loss of amenities are on the lower side
and the same are enhanced to Rs.30,000/- and
Rs.25,000/- respectively.
17.2. Medical expenses, conveyance,
nutrition & attendant charges: Petitioner has
produced medical bills for sum of Rs.87,185/- and
based on it, the tribunal has granted sum of
Rs.90,000/-. However, no separate compensation is
granted towards conveyance, nutrition and attendant
charges. The same is quantified at Rs.10,000/-. Thus
under the head medical, conveyance, nutrition and
attendant charges, the petitioner is granted a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- as against Rs.90,000/-.
17.3. Compensation towards laid up period:
The Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of
Rs.16,000/- towards loss of income during laid up
period i.e., at the rate of Rs.8,000/- p.m. for two
months. Having regard to the nature of the injuries
sustained, it is reasonable to expect that petitioner
was under treatment for three months. At the rate of
Rs.11,750/-, he is entitled for compensation in a sum
of Rs.35,250/- under this head.
17.4. Loss of future income: The tribunal has
granted compensation in a sum of Rs.1,72,800/-.
Having regard to the fact that petitioner has suffered
permanent partial disability at 20% of the whole body,
with notional income at Rs.11,750/- and multiplier 18,
the compensation under the head loss of future
income is Rs.11,750/- x 12 x 18 x 20%
=Rs.5,07,600/- as against Rs.1,72,800/-.
18. Thus, in all petitioner is entitled for total
compensation in a sum of Rs.6,97,850/- as against
Rs.3,08,800/- granted by the tribunal with interest @
6% per annum and accordingly I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) Appellant/petitioner is entitled for
compensation in a sum of Rs.6,97,850/-
as against Rs.3,08,800/- with interest at
6% per annum.
(iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to pay the
compensation together with accrued
interest within a period of six weeks
from the date of this order (minus the
compensation already paid/deposited).
(iv) Registry is directed to return the TCR
along with copy of this order to the
Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BL
