Karnataka High Court
Sri Machaiah vs Sri A V Rakesh on 29 July, 2024
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29761
MFA No. 7437 of 2018
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. 7437 OF 2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI MACHAIAH
S/O C U MUDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT HODDUR VILLAGE
BALAMURI POST VIA MURNADU,
MADIKERI TALUK-571 252
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SUMA KEDILAYA .,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI A V RAKESH
S/O VENKATASWAMY V C
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT D.NO.724,CHOWDAMMA MAHAL
TEACHERS COLONY
Digitally signed by HOSABADAVANE,MADDUR
HEMALATHA A TOWN AND POST
Location: HIGH MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
BEHIND LABOUR OFFICE
AKSHAY BHANDAR, KUVEMPUNAGAR
MYSORE CITY-570 023
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.C SHANKAR REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED: 23082023)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29761
MFA No. 7437 of 2018
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17/02/2018
PASSED IN MVC NO.144/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT,
KODAGU, MADIKERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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 being aggrieved by the judgment
dated 17.02.2018 passed by MACT, Kodagu at Madikeri in
MVC No.144/2016.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly
stated are that on 27.02.2016 when the claimant was
proceeding on car bearing registration No.KA-02-MD-5790
near Dava Workshop, Bylukuppe village, at that time, lorry
bearing registration No.KA-11-A-4964 being driven by its
driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner,
NC: 2024:KHC:29761
dashed 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 respondent No.2
appeared through counsel and filed written statement
denying the averments made in the claim petition. The
respondent No.1, 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,
NC: 2024:KHC:29761
examined himself as PW-1, and Dr.Kiran Bhat was
examined as PW-2, and got exhibited documents namely
Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. On behalf of the respondents, no witness
was examined and 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.11,89,841/- along with interest at the
rate of 9% 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 has sustained grievous injuries.
He has examined the doctor as PW-2. The doctor has
opined that the claimant has suffered permanent visual
disability at 30%. But the Tribunal has erred in awarding
NC: 2024:KHC:29761
global compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- under the head of
'loss of future income', which is on the lower side.
b) Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has
sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for
a period of 24 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 overall compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is inadequate.
With the above contentions, learned counsel for the
appellant sought to allow the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company has raised the following counter-
contentions:
a) Firstly, the claimant is a student, aged 20 years and
he is a non earning member. The disability assessed by
the Tribunal at 30% is on the higher side. After recovering
from the injuries, the claimant has completed his studies.
NC: 2024:KHC:29761
The said disability has not affected his 'loss of future
income'. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under
the head of 'loss of future income' is just and reasonable.
b) Secondly, considering the injuries sustained by the
claimant and considering the age and avocation of the
claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not warrant
interference.
c) Thirdly, in light of the Division Bench decision of this
Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others -v-
Venkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and
connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the
rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. on the
compensation amount appears excessive.
With the above contentions, learned counsel for the
Insurance Company sought to dismiss the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused
the judgment and award of the Tribunal and original
records.
NC: 2024:KHC:29761
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained
injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 27.02.2016
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
by its driver.
10. The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.10,000/-
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
CLW wound over left eye margin, abrasions over forehead
and left cheek, CT scan of brain-contusions at gug,
fracture of ankle. The doctor in his evidence has stated
that the claimant has suffered physical visual permanent
disability of 30%. Therefore, taking into consideration the
deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the
NC: 2024:KHC:29761
wound certificate, the whole body disability is assessed at
20%. The claimant is aged about 20 years at the time of
the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is
'18'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of
Rs.410,400/- (Rs.9,500*12*18*20%) on account of 'loss
of future income' as against Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal towards 'disability and loss of future income'.
12. Considering the nature of injuries and evidence of
the doctor, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under other heads is just and reasonable.
13. Thus, the claimant is entitled for an additional
compensation of Rs.2,10,400/- in addition to total
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
14. 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.
NC: 2024:KHC:29761
c) The claimant is entitled to compensation of
Rs.210,400/- in addition to total compensation of
Rs.11,89,841/- awarded by the Tribunal.
d) Following the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of 'MS.JOYEETA BOSE' (supra), the
enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6%
per annum.
e) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
compensation amount along with interest
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.
Sd/-
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
DM
