Karnataka High Court
Smt M N Anitha vs Sri Abdul Rehman on 8 February, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5485
MFA No. 7436 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.7436 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SMT. M. N. ANITHA,
W/O. D. N. ANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.80,
DODDANALLURAHALLI VILLAGE,
HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT :
NO.441, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD,
K. R. PURAM, BENGALURU-560036.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SUSHMITHA G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by VALLI
MARIMUTHU 1. SRI. ABDUL REHMAN,
Location: High S/O MOHAMMED USMAN,
Court of MAJOR, RESIDENT OF NO.3167/1,
Karnataka SESHACHALAM, MUDALIAR ROAD,
BANGARPETE, KOLAR DISTRICT-563114.
2. THE UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
NO.18, KRUSHI BHAVAN,
5TH FLOOR, OPP. HUDSON CIRCLE
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.S. MARULAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O. dated 08.02.2024 notice to R1 dispensed with)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5485
MFA No. 7436 of 2022
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.09.2017
PASSED IN MVC NO.688/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI
A.C.M.M AND XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-25), 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 is preferred by the appellant-claimant
challenging the judgment and award dated 20.09.2017 passed
by XXI ACMM and XXIII Additional Small Causes Judge, MACT,
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-25) [for short
'Tribunal'], in MVC No.688/2016. This appeal is founded on the
premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by
the Tribunal. Hence, the appellant seeks enhancement of
compensation.
2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their
status before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under;
That on 30.06.2015, the claimant was traveling as a
pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA 53 E
NC: 2024:KHC:5485
5906 along with two other persons. When the motorcycle
reached near Bengaluru-Kolar NH.4 road, near Gottipura Gate,
Hoskote Town, Bengaluru, a TATA Sumo vehicle bearing
Registration No.KA 52 2489 came in a rash and negligent
manner from the same direction on the wrong side and dashed
against the motorcycle of the claimant. Due to which, the
claimant and the two persons fell down sustained injuries and
were immediately shifted to Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru, where
they took treatment and financial expenditure were met for the
injuries.
3.1 It is stated that the claimant was hale and healthy
working as agriculturist/home maker earning a sum of
Rs.12,000/- per month. Due to occurrence of accident and
injuries sustained, she has been unable to do her work as she
was doing prior to occurrence of accident. In view of the
injuries sustained and treatment expended, she filed claim
petition against the respondents seeking compensation.
3.2 Respondents on appearance filed statement of objections
denying the claim of the claimant including age, avocation,
income and negligence contributed as against the driver of Tata
Sumo vehicle sought for dismissal of claim petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:5485
3.3 On the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant
issues for consideration.
3.4 In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the
case, the claimant got herself examined as PW.2 and Doctor as
PW.4 and got marked 7 documents as Exs.P.26 to P.32. On the
other hand, the respondents have neither examined any
witness nor produced any documents on their behalf.
3.5 The Tribunal on assessing the material on record and
appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary, awarded
a total compensation of Rs.6,34,400/- with interest at 8% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of depositing the
award amount. Respondent No.2-Insurer was directed to
deposit the compensation amount within 60 days.
3.6 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation awarded by
the Tribunal, the claimant is before this Court seeking
enhancement of compensation.
4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant-
claimant that the Tribunal has awarded meager compensation
without taking into consideration the material placed on record
NC: 2024:KHC:5485
so also, the income taken is at a lower side and seeks to allow
the appeal and consequently, to enhance the compensation.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance
Company submits that the Tribunal has rightly awarded just
and reasonable compensation, which does not call for
interference. Therefore, on these grounds, he seeks to dismiss
the appeal.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-claimant
and learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company
and perused the impugned judgment and award.
7. On perusal of the receipts produced by the claimants,
Exs.P.1 to P.5 are the Police Records and other documents of
medical treatment and bills for expended towards the said
treatment are placed on record as Exhibits to show the
expenses met by the claimant.
8. On the basis of these records, negligence has been rightly
attributed against the driver of the offending vehicle.
9. Now, coming to the question of age, avocation, income
and the disability, it is seen that the age of the claimant is 29
NC: 2024:KHC:5485
years. The appropriate multiplier for the said age would be 17,
which is rightly taken by the Tribunal. The same is
undisturbed.
10. The Tribunal assessed the income of deceased at
Rs.8,000/- per month, whereas the notional income prescribed
by the Legal Services Authority for the year 2015 is Rs.9,000/-.
The same is taken as the income in the present case.
11. Towards disability, the Doctor has been examined, who
opined the disability to an extent of 31% to the left lower arm
and 25% to the whole body, whereas the Tribunal has assessed
the disability to be 10% to the whole body. It is apparently
seen that the Doctor himself has assessed the disability at 31%
to the left lower arm, however, has assessed disability to the
whole body at 25%. The functional disability will have to be
looked into on the basis of age, avocation of the claimant and
the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 10% to the whole
body after deducting 1/3rd from the opinion expressed by the
doctor. I do not find any need to interfere with the same. The
same is retained. However, the amount of income taken at
Rs.8,000/- per month is on the lower side. The same is
required to be taken at Rs.9,000/- per month as per the Legal
NC: 2024:KHC:5485
Services Authority Chart. Hence, income is taken at Rs.9,000/-
per month. Therefore, the loss of future income due to
disability would be Rs.9,000/- x 12 x 17 x 10% =
Rs.1,83,600/- as against Rs.1,63,200/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
12. Towards pain and suffering, Tribunal has awarded
Rs.50,000/-; towards medical expenses Rs.3,50,183/- on the
basis of actual bills produced. These two are undisturbed.
13. Towards loss of income during laid-up period, Tribunal
has awarded Rs.16,000/-. In view of enhanced income of
Rs.9,000/- per month and at least three months would have
been taken to recuperate and get back to the regular work,
Rs.9,000/- x 3 months = Rs.27,000/- is awarded under this
head.
14. Towards future amenities and happiness, Tribunal has
awarded Rs.15,000/-. Considering the magnitude of the injuries
suffered by the claimant, additional Rs.20,000/- is awarded
under this head.
15. Towards attendant, Conveyance, food and nourishment
charges, Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/-, whereas the
NC: 2024:KHC:5485
claimant was inpatient for 23 days. Therefore, additional
Rs.15,000/- is awarded under this head.
16. Towards future medical expenses, Rs.25,000/- is awarded
by the Tribunal. The same is retained.
17. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.7,00,783/- as against Rs.6,34,383/- as
mentioned in the Table below;
Sl.No. Heads Amount in
Rs.
1. Pain and suffering 50,000/-
2. Medical expenses 3,50,183/-
3. Loss of amenities 35,000/-
4. Loss of income during laid-up period 27,000/-
[Rs.9,000 x 3 months]
5. Attendant, conveyance, Food and 30,000/-
Nourishment charges
6. Loss of future earnings due to disability 1,83,600/-
[Rs.9,000x12x17x10%]
7. Future medical expenses 25,000/-
Total 7,00,783/-
18. Accordingly, I pass the following;
Order
i) The appeal is allowed in-part.
ii) The judgment and award dated 20.09.2017 passed
by XXI ACMM and XXIII Additional Small Causes
NC: 2024:KHC:5485
Judge, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru
(SCCH-25), in MVC No.688/2016, is modified.
iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.7,00,783/- as against Rs.6,34,383/-.
iv) The interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of
8% per annum on the compensation amount of
Rs.6,34,383/- is left undisturbed. The enhanced
compensation shall carry interest at 6% p.a., which
shall be paid within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
v) Claimant shall not be entitled to interest for the
delay period of 1038 days.
vi) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the
Tribunal shall stand intact.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MV
