Karnataka High Court
Sri Raghavendra V vs Sri Anandtheertha B on 26 June, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:23496
MFA No. 134 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 134 OF 2022 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI RAGHAVENDRA V
S/O VEERABADRAIAH
AGE 42 YEARS,
R/O AVATHI VILLAGE,
DR RAJKUMAR TALUK,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 164.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI LATUR SURESH MAHALINGAPPA, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI ANANDTHEERTHA B
S/O B.S. KRISHNAMURTHY
NO.68, NEAR VIJAYA MANDIR,
2ND MAIN, 5TH CROSS,
Digitally MARUTHI NAGAR, YELAHANKA,
signed by BENGALURU - 560 064.
NANDINI MS
Location: 2. THE MANAGER,
High Court of
Karnataka TATA AIG INSURANCE COMPANY
LTD., BANGALORE
NO69, 2ND FLOOR,
JP AND DEVI JAMBUKESHKAR
ARCADE, NEW ICICI FIRST
SOURCE, MILERS ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 052.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADV., FOR R-2;
V/O DATED 12.07.2022, NOTICE TO R-1
IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:23496
MFA No. 134 of 2022
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.10. 2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 2036/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT-3, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section
173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the
judgment and award dated 12.10.2021 passed in MVC
No.2036/2019 by the Court of Small Causes & Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal').
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2-
Insurance Company.
3. The status of the parties before the Tribunal is
retained for the sake of convenience.
4. The case of the appellant/claimant is that the
petitioner filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under
NC: 2024:KHC:23496
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'M.V. Act')
claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries
sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on
18.02.2019 inter alia contending that on the said date at
about 4.20 p.m, when he was proceeding from
Yarthiganahalli to Kannamangala Gate, while crossing
B.B.Road, at that time the driver of car bearing
Registration No.KA-51-Z-0371 came from Devanahalli to
Bengaluru in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the petitioner's motor cycle due to which, he has
sustained grievous injuries and was taken to private
hospital at Devanahalli for treatment and then he was
admitted to Baptist Hospital, Bengaluru and for further
treatment he was admitted to Victoria hospital, Bengaluru.
Therefore, he became disabled and unable to work.
Hence, he prayed to grant compensation.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has filed
statement of objection by denying occupation and income
of the petitioner. However, it is contended that the
NC: 2024:KHC:23496
petitioner is insured the vehicle with respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 has also filed statement of objection by
denying all the contentions of respondent No.1 and prayed
for dismissal of the petition.
6. On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed
the following issues for consideration:
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, he has
sustained grievous injuries in the accident
occurred on 18.02.2019 at about 4.20 p.m,
near Kannamangala Gate, B.B.Road,
Devanahalli, Bengaluru, due to negligent act of
driver of Car bearing reg.No.KA-51-Z-0371 as
alleged in the petition?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
Compensation? If so, what is the quantum of
compensation and from whom?
3. What order or award?
7. In order to substantiate the case, the petitioner
himself examined as PW.1 and he has also examined
doctor as PW.2 and record keepers of Baptist Hospital and
Victoria Hospital were examined as PWs.3 and 4 and in
NC: 2024:KHC:23496
total got marked documents as 26 documents as Exs.P1 to
P26. On behalf of the respondents no evidence let in.
8. On the basis of material evidence, both oral and
documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned
counsel for both parties, the tribunal answered issue No.1
in affirmative and issue No.2 in partly affirmative.
Consequently, allowed the petition in part by granting
compensation of Rs.5,95,000/- with 6% interest. Being
aggrieved by the compensation, the claimant is before this
Court.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
as the accident occurred in the year 2019, the Tribunal
has considered notional income of Rs.9,000/- which is very
meager. The disability given by the Doctor to whole body
is 21% but the Tribunal considered only 14% disability to
the whole body. There is no compensation under the head
loss of future prospects and compensation awarded under
other heads is very meager, hence, he prays for enhance
the same.
NC: 2024:KHC:23496
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent-
Insurance Company, supported the judgment of Tribunal
justifying the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
Further, he contended that the Tribunal has assessed the
disability correctly which does not call for interference and
in all other heads, the tribunal has awarded reasonable
compensation. Therefore, on these grounds, he seeks
dismissal of the appeal.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for appellant-
claimant and the learned counsel for respondent-Insurance
Company, the point that arise for my consideration is
Whether the appellant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation. If so, to what
extent?
12. The accident in question dated 18.02.2019 is
not in dispute due to which the petitioner had sustained
grievous injuries. Exs.P1 to P3 is police records. As per
Exs.P5 & P6 he has sustained grievous injuries. Wound
certificate at Ex.P6 reveals that there was right leg mid
NC: 2024:KHC:23496
shaft fracture, comminuted fracture medial malleolus,
Tibial posterior tendon laceration and cut wound on left
eyebrow. The petitioner admitted in the hospital for 2-3
days including Victoria hospital as well as Baptist hospital,
Bengaluru. He has admitted in the hospital for 35 days
and 3 times he was inpatient. Hence, he could have
suffered lot of pain and agony. The Tribunal has awarded
Rs.50,000/- towards pain and agony which is very
meager. Hence, it is just and proper to award
Rs.75,000/- towards pain and agony,.
13. As regards medical expenses, the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.1,99,159/-, which is based on the medical
expenses incurred by the petitioner. Therefore, there is no
need to interfere with the same.
14. As regards to amenities and nutritious food, the
Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/-. The petitioner was
admitted in the hospital for 35 days. The Tribunal has
awarded Rs.20,000/- towards attendant charges and
conveyance. In total Rs.50,000/- was awarded by the
NC: 2024:KHC:23496
Tribunal towards Loss of amenities & nutritious food
and attendant charges & conveyance. Under the facts
and circumstances, I deem it just and proper to award
another Rs.20,000/- under this head.
15. As regard to loss of income during the laid up
period, The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the
claimant as Rs.9,000/-, which is not correct. Therefore,
the notional income would be Rs.14,000/- p.m. as per the
chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority. Though the petitioner has stated that he is a
photographer and earning more income but no documents
were produced to prove his income and profession.
Therefore, there is no option to this Court to consider
notional income as Rs.14,000/-. as the accident occurred
in the year 2019. The laid up period is taken as six months
and calculated as Rs.14,000/- x 6 = Rs.84,000/-.
16. The petitioner is also entitled for future medical
expenses towards removal of implants. He has undergone
surgery. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards
NC: 2024:KHC:23496
future medical expenses, which is very meager. For the
purpose of treatment and surgery he has admitted to
Baptist hospital. If such being the case, he has to come
before the same hospital for removal of implants.
Therefore, he may requires Rs.50,000/- towards medical
expenses. Therefore, I propose to award Rs.50,000/-
towards future medical expenses.
17. As regards loss of income due to disability, the
doctor has stated 41.59% towards disability of limb and
20.79% towards whole body. Though learned counsel for
the appellant has contended to take 21% as disability, the
petitioner has sustained injury on other parts of the body
but the disability is only to right leg which is fracture
injury. Therefore, disability is only to particular one limb.
Normally, the Court used to consider 1/3rd disability
towards whole body. The Tribunal has rightly taken 1/3rd
disability to whole body instead of 1/2 disability to whole
body as suggested by the doctor and therefore, there is no
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23496
need to consider 21% disability to the whole body instead
of 14% as considered by the Tribunal.
18. As regard to future prospects, learned counsel
for the appellant contended that the petitioner is entitled
for loss of future prospects. Though the petitioner/claimant
is a photographer but he has not produced any document
to prove his profession and due to the injury he has
suffered physical functional disability. In order to grant
any loss of income towards future prospects, the
petitioner/claimant has to prove physical functional
disability. Therefore, contention of learned counsel for the
appellant is not acceptable and there is no loss of future
prospects due to physical functional disability. Hence,
question of awarding loss of future income does not arise.
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled only for loss of income
due to disability. Accordingly, loss of income due to
disability is calculates as follows:
14,000/- x 12 x 15 x 14%=Rs.3,52,800/-
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23496
19. Therefore, the loss of income due to disability
would be Rs.3,52,800/- as against Rs.2,26,800/-
awarded by the tribunal.
20. In view of the above, the claimant would be
entitled to a total compensation of Rs.8,30,959/- and the
same is rounded off to Rs.8,31,000 as against
Rs.5,95,000/- as mentioned in the table below:
Heads Amount in
Rs.
Loss of future income 3,52,000-00
Pain and agony 75,000-00
Medical expenses 1,99,159-00
Loss of amenities & nutritious food & 70,000-00
Attendant charges & conveyance
Loss of income during laid up period 84,000-00
Future medical expenses 50,000-00
TOTAL 8,30,959-00
Rounded off Rs.8,31,000.00
21. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;
ii) The judgment and award dated 12.10.2021
passed in MVC No.2036/2019 by the Motor
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23496
Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru is modified;
iii) The claimant would be entitled to a sum of
Rs.8,31,000/- as against Rs.5,95,000/-;
iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid
by the respondent-Insurance Company with
interest @ 6% per annum within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order;(excluding future medical expenses)
v) Out of the enhanced compensation, 60% shall be
released in favour of the claimant and 40% to be
deposited in any nationalized bank in the name of
petitioner;
vi) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy
of the order passed by this Court forthwith without
any delay.
vii) Draw award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NMS
