Karnataka High Court

Ravikumar. H. K vs Shivanna on 7 August, 2024

Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad

                                                 -1-
                                                            NC: 2024:KHC:31394
                                                          MFA No. 9024 of 2018




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

                                              BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9024 OF 2018 (MV)
                      BETWEEN:
                      RAVIKUMAR. H. K.
                      S/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA
                      AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
                      R/AT AT HARIHARAPURA
                      DODDERI HOBLI
                      MADHUGIRI TALUK-572 132.
                                                                   ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K.,ADVOCATE)

                      AND:
                      1. SHIVANNA
                         S/O. KARIYANNA
                         AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
                         R/AT HARIHARAPURA
                         DABBEGHATTA POST
                         MADHUGIRI TALUK -572 132.

Digitally signed by   2.    NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
HEMALATHA A
Location: HIGH              BY ITS MANAGER
COURT OF                    KASTURI MANSION, M.G. ROAD
KARNATAKA
                            BEHIND KRISHNA TALKIES
                            ABOVE CORPORATION BANK
                            TUMAKURU -572 101.
                                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SRI. A M VENKATESH, ADVCOATE FOR R2:
                      BITUCE TI R1 IS DISPENSED WITH
                      V/O DTD 08/02/19.)
                             THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
                      AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04/09/2018,
                      PASSED    IN MVC   NO.1300/2016, ON THE FILE OF     THE
                             -2-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC:31394
                                     MFA No. 9024 of 2018




PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MADHUGIRI,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:   HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD


                    ORAL 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 challenging by the judgment dated

04.09.2018 passed by MACT, Madhugiri in MVC

No.1300/2016.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly

stated are that on 25.04.2016 when the claimant was

proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-51-

EJ-5371 on the left side of the road from Begnaluru to

Dasegowdanahally, at that time, TVS moped bearing

registration No.KA-64-J-5617 being driven by its driver at

a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed

NC: 2024:KHC:31394

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

significant amount towards medical expenses, conveyance

charges and other related costs. It was further pleaded

that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

4. Upon service of notice, the respondents appeared

through counsel and respondent No.2 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, in order to prove the case,

examined himself as PW-2, and Dr.Gopalkrishna was

NC: 2024:KHC:31394

examined as PW-3, and got exhibited documents namely

Ex.P1 to Ex.P29. On behalf of the respondents, no witness

was examined but got exhibited documents 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.300,347/- 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. The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the

following contentions:

a) Firstly, the claimant asserts that he was earning

Rs.20,000/- per month by working as agriculture.

However, the Tribunal has erred in taking the income as

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

NC: 2024:KHC:31394

b) Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as

PW-3. Due to the accident the claimant has sustained

facial injuries. The Tribunal undervalued the claimant's

whole-body disability at 10%, contradicting the evidence

of the doctor that the claimant suffered 30% disability to

particular limb and 10% to whole body.

c) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for

a period of 17 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.

With the above contentions, the learned counsel

sought to allow the appeal.

NC: 2024:KHC:31394

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

Insurance Company has raised the following counter-

contentions:

a) Firstly, the assertion of claimant that he was earning

Rs.30,000/- per month, remains unsubstantiated due to

lack of documentary evidence. In the absence of proof of

income, the Tribunal has 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 warrant interference.

With the above contentions, the learned counsel

sought to dismiss the appeal.

NC: 2024:KHC:31394

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 25.04.2016

due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle

by its driver.

10. The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.30,000/-

per month. But he has not produced any documents to

substantiate his claim. Therefore, in the absence of proof

of income, notional income has to be assessed. According

to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal

Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year

2016, notional income shall be taken at Rs.9,500/- p.m.

11. As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained

bifrontal depressed comminuted fracture with CFS

rhinorrhoea. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the

claimant has suffered disability of 30% to facial region and

NC: 2024:KHC:31394

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 is aged about 35

years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable

to his age group is '16'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for

compensation of Rs.182,400/- (Rs.9500*12*16*10%)

on account of 'loss of future income'.

12. The nature of injuries indicates that the claimant

must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 3

months. Consequently, the claimant is entitled for

compensation of Rs.28,500/- (Rs.9,500*3 months) under

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

13. The claimant was hospitalized as an inpatient for

more than 17 days in the hospital and subsequently

received further treatment. Due to the accident, the

claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone

surgery. Considering the prolonged pain during treatment

NC: 2024:KHC:31394

as well as the permanent disability certified by the doctor,

I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by

the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from

Rs.40,000/- to Rs.65,000/- and under the head of 'loss

of amenities' from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.

14. Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and

reasonable.

15. 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                40,000         65,000

 Medical expenses                   13,047         13,047

 Food, nourishment,                  6,300          6,300
 conveyance and
 attendant charges

 Loss of income during               9,000         28,500
                                  - 10 -
                                                   NC: 2024:KHC:31394





     laid up period

     Loss of amenities                     35,000            50,000

     Loss of future income                162,000           182,400

     Future medical expenses               35,000            35,000

                      Total               300,347           380,247

16. In the result, the following order is passed:

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.380,247/-.

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. However, interest shall not be applicable