Karnataka High Court

Ramachandrappa @ Ramesh vs Marulasiddeshwara on 29 July, 2024

Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad

                                                -1-
                                                              NC: 2024:KHC:29811
                                                           MFA No. 8243 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. 8243 OF 2018 (MV)
                      BETWEEN:
                      RAMACHANDRAPPA @ RAMESH
                      S/O KENCHAPPA
                      COOLIE, R/O KOTEHAL VILLAGE
                      HOLALKERE TALUK
                      CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526.
                                                                    ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA .,ADVOCATE)

                      AND:
                      1. MARULASIDDESHWARA
                         S/O R.M.JAYAPPA, AGE MAJOR,
                         R/O PRARTHANA NILAYA
                         4TH CROSS, MALLESHWARA NAGARA
                         GUNDAPPA SHED, SHIVAMOGA CITY-577 201.

                      2.    THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
                            UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD.,
Digitally signed by
HEMALATHA A                 MMK COMPLEX, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD
Location: HIGH              DAVANAGERE-577 001.
COURT OF                                                         ...RESPONDENTS
KARNATAKA
                      (BY SRI.RAVISH BENNI., ADVOCATE FOR R2:
                          NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DATED: 23.12.2019)
                           THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
                      AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:23.06.2018
                      PASSED IN MVC NO.1279/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
                      CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, MACT, HOLALKERE, 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:
                               -2-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC:29811
                                           MFA No. 8243 of 2018




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 23.06.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge &

MACT, Holalkere in MVC No.1279/2016.

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

stated are that on 09.03.2016 at about 04.15 p.m., when

the claimant was walking near Anjaneyaswamy temple for

his domestic purpose by observing traffic rules, at that

time, the claimant reaches at NH-13, in front of

Anjaneyaswamy Temple, near Janakonda Village at

Chitradurga Taluk, then the driver of the Shiva Stage

Carriage Bus bearing Registration No.KA-14/B-1678 drove

the same in a rash and negligent manner without

observing traffic rules and regulations, dashed to the

claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the

claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

NC: 2024:KHC:29811

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,

examined himself as PW-1, Dr.Ramesh Kotiyan was

examined as PW-2 and Dr.M.V.Sathyanarayana was

examined as PW-3, and got exhibited documents namely

NC: 2024:KHC:29811

Ex.P1 to Ex.P30. On behalf of the respondents, one

witness i.e. Dr.Prakash was examined as RW-1 and no

document was exhibited. 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.2,95,262/-

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 Tribunal erred in assuming the monthly

income of the claimant as Rs.6,000/-, despite evidence

showing he earned Rs.20,000/- per month by working as a

Coolie.

NC: 2024:KHC:29811

b) Secondly, the claimant has examined

Dr.M.V.Sathyanarayana as PW-3. He deposed that the

claimant suffered 30% psychological disability and 30% to

physical disability. But the Tribunal has taken the whole

body disability at 10%, which is on the lower side. Due to

psychological disability and physical disability, the claimant

was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has

suffered lot of pain during treatment. Therefore, he is

entitled for addition of future prospects. In support of his

contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the High

Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in MFA

Nos.103807/2016 and connected matter disposed of on

27.05.2022.

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

sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for

a period of 37 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

NC: 2024:KHC:29811

Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and

sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower

side.

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 assertion of claimant that he was earning

Rs.20,000/- 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, immediately after the accident, the

claimant was admitted to the Government Hospital,

Chitradurga. The Wound Certificate (Ex.P7) issued by the

Government Hospital clearly indicates that the claimant's

injuries were minor. Even the CT scan conducted by the

NC: 2024:KHC:29811

Hospital showed normal results. Respondent No.2's

witness, Dr. Prakash (RW-1), testified that the claimant's

injuries were minor and that he had recovered from the

head injury, with no lasting effects. In light of the medical

records, discharge summary and the evidence of RW-1, it

is evident that the claimant's injuries were indeed minor.

Accordingly, the Tribunal's assessment of 10% whole body

disability is justified.

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, learned counsel for the

Insurance Company sought to dismiss the appeal.

NC: 2024:KHC:29811

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal and

original records

9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained

injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 09.03.2016

due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle

by its driver.

10. The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/-

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

closed head injury with acute SHD on left side, complete

tear of ACL and PCL, Complex tear with avulsion of medial

NC: 2024:KHC:29811

meniscus complex and other injuries. The doctor (PW-2) in

his evidence has deposed about the injuries suffered by

the claimant but he has not assessed any physical

disability. The doctor (PW-3) in his evidence has stated

that the claimant undergone surgery i.e. fracture of closer

head injury with acute with SDH on left side and further

petitioner was sustained infection and admitted the

hospital and developed seizure (Fits). Due to the head

injury, the claimant suffered 30% psychological disability

and 30% to physical disability. Therefore, taking into

consideration the deposition of the doctors and injuries

mentioned in the wound certificate, CT scan report and

discharge summary, I am of the opinion that the whole

body disability is assessed at 30%.

12. At the time of the accident, the claimant was working

as Coolie. Due to the head injury, the claimant suffered

30% psychological disability and 30% to physical

disability. Therefore, the claimant is unable to do his day

to day work and it affects his working capacity, which

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:29811

results in reduction of his income. Therefore, considering

the evidence of PW-3, injuries suffered by the claimant,

age and avocation of the claimant and in view of the

judgment of the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

in MFA Nos.103807/2016 and connected matter disposed of

on 27.05.2022, the claimant is also entitled for future

prospects. Since the claimant was aged about 40 years,

40% has to be added on account of future prospects in

view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the

Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.

LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR

2017 SC 5157. Thus, the monthly income comes to

Rs.13,300/-. The claimant is aged about 40 years

at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable

to his age group is '15'. Thus, the claimant is entitled

for compensation of Rs.7,18,200/-

(Rs.13,330*12*15*30%) on account of 'loss of future

income'.

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:29811

13. The nature of injuries indicates that the claimant

must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 2

months. Consequently, the claimant is entitled for

compensation of Rs.19,000/- (Rs.9,500*2 months) under

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

14. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered

grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He was

hospitalized as an inpatient for more than 37 days in the

hospital. 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 'pain and sufferings' from

Rs.25,000/- to Rs.35,000/- and under the head of 'loss

of amenities' from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/-.

15. Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and

reasonable.

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC:29811

16. 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                    25,000         35,000

 Medical expenses                     1,17,262       1,17,262

 Food, nourishment,                     15,000         15,000
 conveyance and
 attendant charges

 Loss of income during                  10,000         19,000
 laid up period

 Loss of amenities                      10,000         20,000

 Loss of future income                1,08,000       7,18,200

 Future medical expenses                10,000         10,000

                 Total                2,95,262      9,34,462

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