Karnataka High Court

Sanjip Oraon vs S A Anand on 3 January, 2024

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                               -1-
                                                              NC: 2024:KHC:197
                                                        MFA No. 3833 of 2021




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

                                             BEFORE

                         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

                        MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3833 OF 2021 (MV-I)

                   BETWEEN:

                   SANJIP ORAON
                   S/O SANIYA ORAON
                   AGED 21 YEARS
                   R/AT NO 35, MAHALINGESHWARA LAYOUT
                   R H COLONY, ADUGODI, BENGALURU - 560030
                   PERMANENT ADDRESS: MONGPONG FOREST BUSTY
                   PARINAGAR KHASMAHAL, PABRINGTAR KALINIPONG
                   DARJEELING, WEST BENGAL - 734314
                                                           ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. SRIDHAR D S., ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.    S A ANAND
Digitally signed         S/O ANNAIAH REDDY
by SUNITHA               MAJOR
GANGARAJU
                         R/AT NO 91/C, 12TH CROSS,
Location: High           MARUTHINAGAR, MADIVALA
Court of
Karnataka                BENGALURU - 560068

                   2.    M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD
                         REP. BY ITS MANAGER,
                         T P HUB, V AND VI FLOOR,
                         KRISHI BHAVANA BUILIDING
                         HUDSON CIRCLE
                         BENGALURU - 560001
                                                            ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SRI. G.S. MARULAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                                    -2-
                                                     NC: 2024:KHC:197
                                              MFA No. 3833 of 2021




     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.17.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1396/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI AND XI ADDITIONAL
SMALL CAUSES AND ADDITIONAL MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-
23),    PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION      AND     SEEKING     ENHANCEMENT     OF
COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                              JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant

challenging the judgment and award dated 17.01.2020 in

MVC.No.1396/2019 passed by XXI and XI Additional Small

Causes and Addl. MACT and ACMM, Bengaluru (for short 'the

tribunal'). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequate

and meager compensation awarded by the tribunal.

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 02.03.2019 at about 3.40 p.m., when the

claimant was riding a bicycle on the left side of the road at

Koramangala Yadaviru Mutt main road, near Corner house

building, Bengaluru, at that time, the driver of the Water

Tanker Lorry bearing No.KA-05-A-8933, drove the vehicle in a

NC: 2024:KHC:197

rash and negligent manner in order to endanger human life and

safety and dashed against the bicycle of the claimant, due to

which the claimant sustained severe injuries all over the body.

Thereafter, the claimant was shifted to Acura Hospital, wherein

first aid was given and later shifted to St.Johns hospital,

Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as inpatient and incurred

more than Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical treatment.

4. It is the case of the claimant that he was hale and

healthy prior to the accident. He was working as an office boy

in a company and earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. and due to the

injuries sustained in the accident, it has effected his day to day

life including his working capacity and earning capacity, thereby

resulting in loss of financial growth and income. In view of the

occurrence of the accident and the negligence of the driver of

the Water Tanker Lorry, claimant filed the claim petition

seeking compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- with interest.

5. On service of notice, respondents appeared through

their counsel and filed statement of objections. Respondent

No.1- owner of the Water Tanker Lorry pleaded that his vehicle

has been insured with respondent No.2. Hence, respondent

NC: 2024:KHC:197

No.2 would have to indemnify respondent No.1, whereas the

insurance company- respondent No.2 denied the averments of

the claim petition to be vexatious and frivolous and pleaded

that the accident occurred due to the negligence and fault of

the claimant. However, the driver of the lorry admitted the

issuance of the policy of the vehicle involved in the accident

i.e., Lorry. On this basis, sought for dismissal of the claim

petition.

6. On the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal framed

relevant issues for consideration which are as under:

1. Whether the petitioner proves that, on 02.03.2019 at about 3.40 p.m near Koramangala Yadaniru Matt road, near Corner house building, Bengaluru, he had sustained grievous injuries in the RTC by the driver of the Water Tanker bearing No.KA-05-A-8933 on his rash and negligent riding?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. What order or award?

NC: 2024:KHC:197

7. In order to substantiate the issues and to establish

the case, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and

examined the Doctor as PW.2 and got marked documents as

Exs.P1 to P21. On the contrary, respondents neither examined

any witness nor got marked any documents on their behalf.

8. It is the vehement contention of the learned

counsel for the claimant that the Tribunal has committed an

error in not taking into consideration the material on record

both oral and documentary and has awarded meager

compensation. It is also contended that the Tribunal has not

taken into consideration the proper income of the claimant to

arrive at suitable and just compensation. So also it is

contended that the Tribunal has failed to take into

consideration the loss of income during laid up period and on

these grounds the claimant seeks enhancement of

compensation.

9. Per contra, learned counsel representing the

insurance company vehemently contends that the judgment

and award passed by the Tribunal is correct, proper income has

been taken by the Tribunal, as no cogent evidence for proof of

NC: 2024:KHC:197

income is produced by the claimant and on other heads also.

The Tribunal has awarded the reasonable and just

compensation which does not call for any interference. On

these grounds he seeks dismissal of the appeal.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for both the

parties and having perused the original records and impugned

judgment and award of the Tribunal, it is seen that there is no

dispute with regard to the occurrence of the accident,

involvement of the vehicle, injuries sustained by the claimant in

the road traffic accident which are all established by the

production of Exs.P.1 to P21. Therefore, the negligence is

rightly attributed against the driver of the Water Tanker Lorry

and the fact also reminds that the driver of the Water Tanker

Lorry has not challenged the initiation of the criminal case

against him.

11. Coming to the aspect of age, avocation and income

of the claimant for awarding compensation, admittedly, no

cogent piece of evidence is produced with regard to proof of

income. In the absence of the same, Tribunal or this Court is

bound to take into consideration the Legal Services Authority

NC: 2024:KHC:197

Chart wherein notional income is prescribed for relevant year of

accident. In the present case, accident having occurred in the

year 2019, the notional income is Rs.14,000/- p.m. The

claimant is aged 19 years as on the date of occurrence of

accident. Accordingly, appropriate multiplier would be '18' as

per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SARLA

VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN (2009) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES

121.

12. PW.2- doctor has adduced in the evidence stating

that the claimant has sustained injuries which are grievous in

nature and one injury is simple in nature. Thereby, PW.2 has

opined the physical impairment of left upper limb to be 22%,

however, the doctor has not opined the disability to whole body

or functional disability. The Tribunal has assessed the disability

to be at 10% on consideration of the judgment in the case of

"RAJ KUMAR VS. AJAY KUMAR AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN

(2011) 1 SCC 343". The same is accepted as there is no

contra evidence placed on record by the insurance company to

dispute the disability assessed by the Tribunal. Therefore, loss

of future earning capacity due to disability would be (14,000 X

NC: 2024:KHC:197

12 X 18 X 10/100) = Rs.3,02,400/- as against Rs.2,16,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal.

13. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

towards pain and suffering. I do not find any error in award of

the said amount and same is retained.

14. The tribunal has awarded Rs.3,25,000/- towards

medical, conveyance, nutrition and attendant charges, based

on the actual bills and prescriptions and treatment made during

the course of admission. Hence, same does not call for

interference and same is retained at Rs.3,25,000/-.

15. The tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss

of future happiness and amenities and Rs.75,000/- towards

loss of future medical expenses, which in my opinion does not

call for interference.

16. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss

of income during treatment and Rs.10,000/- p.m. as income

which is on the lower side. In view of this Court enhancing the

income from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.14,000/- p.m, same gets

NC: 2024:KHC:197

automatically enhanced to Rs.42,000/- as against Rs.30,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal.

17. In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled

to a total compensation of Rs.8,94,400/- as against

Rs.7,96,000/- as mentioned in the table below:

                      Heads                      Amount in Rs.

Loss of income                                          3,02,400-00

Pain and suffering                                      1,00,000-00

Loss of income during treatment                           42,000-00

Medical, conveyance, Nutrition and                      3,25,000-00
attendant charges

Loss of future            happiness        and            50,000-00
amenities

Future medical expenses                                   75,000-00

                      TOTAL                            8,94,400-00

18. Accordingly, I pass the following: