Karnataka High Court
Isthikar Aalam vs Sri G Satish Reddy on 29 July, 2024
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29768
MFA No. 1794 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1794 OF 2019 (MV)
BETWEEN:
ISTHIKAR AALAM
S/O KUSUMDDIN
NOW AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING PRESENTLY MIYAN
JAGDISH, JAMO, JAMOBAZAR
SIWAN, BIHAR 841413
ALSO RESIDING PRESENTLY AT
NO.991, SRY LAYOUT, KOPPA ROAD
MYLASANDRA, VADDARAPALYA BUS STOP
BENGALURU-68.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI G SATISH REDDY
S/O GOVINDA REDDY
MAJOR IN AGE
Digitally signed by POST OFFICE ROAD
HEMALATHA A
ATIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BANGALORE 562106.
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT
V/O DATED: 04.07.2023)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.09.2018
PASSED IN MVC NO.5028/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER,
MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-15), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29768
MFA No. 1794 of 2019
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. 1. 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
dated 03.09.2018 passed by MACT, Bengaluru in MVC
No.5028/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly
stated are that on 27.06.2017 when the claimant was a
pedestrian on Dr.Marigowda Road, Near Lalbagh Main Gate
in order to board BMTC bus, at that time, private bus
bearing registration No.KA-51-C-9879 being driven by its
driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner,
dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the
aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous
injuries and was hospitalized.
NC: 2024:KHC:29768
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 respondent, despite
service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal and
was placed ex-parte.
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-1, and Dr.S.A.Somashekara was
examined as PW-2, and got exhibited documents namely
Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. On behalf of the respondent, neither any
witness was examined nor any document was produced.
The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter
alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash
NC: 2024:KHC:29768
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.447,500/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. and directed the respondent to deposit the
compensation amount along with interest. Being
aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant has submitted
as follows:
a) Firstly, the Tribunal erred in assuming the monthly
income of the claimant as Rs.22,000/-, despite evidence
showing he earned Rs.8,000/- per month by working as
Tiles and Granite Layer.
b) Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as
PW-2. The Tribunal undervalued the claimant's whole-body
disability at 8%, contradicting the evidence of the doctor
that the claimant suffered 33% disability to particular limb
and 17% to whole body.
NC: 2024:KHC:29768
c) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has
sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for
a period of 11 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 submissions, learned counsel for the
appellant sought to allow the appeal.
7. Respondent is served and unrepresented.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant 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 27.06.2017
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
by its driver.
NC: 2024:KHC:29768
10. The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.22,000/-
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
2017, notional income shall be taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m.
11. As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained
Pelvis, pubic symphyisis diastasis with posterior iliac bone,
fracture of superior and inferior public rami and fracture of
bilateral sacral ala and S1 vertebra. The doctor in his
evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered
disability of 33% to particular limb and 17% 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 11%. The claimant is aged about 29 years at
the time of the accident and multiplier applicable
to his age group is '17'. Thus, the claimant is
NC: 2024:KHC:29768
entitled for compensation of Rs.246,840/-
(Rs.11,000*12*17*11%) 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.33,000/- (Rs.11,000*3 months)
under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.
13. The claimant was hospitalized as an inpatient for
more than 11 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
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 'loss of amenities' from
Rs.20,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.
NC: 2024:KHC:29768
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 40,000
Medical expenses 229,000 229,000
Food, nourishment, 10,000 10,000
conveyance and
attendant charges
Loss of income during 8,000 33,000
laid up period
Loss of amenities 20,000 40,000
Loss of future income 130,500 246,840
Future medical expenses 10,000 10,000
Total 447,500 608,840
16. In the result, the following order is passed:
NC: 2024:KHC:29768
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.608,840/-.
d) The respondent 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
to the compensation awarded under the head of
'future medical expenses'.
Sd/-
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
DM
