Karnataka High Court
Smt Kumari vs Sri Raghubalan K S on 28 May, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:17821
MFA No. 107 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 107 OF 2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SMT. KUMARI,
W/O LATE GOVINDGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT MARENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJU S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. RAGHUBALAN K.S.,
S/O SRINIVAS IYENGAR,
MAJOR,
R/AT D.NO.39, BLOCK 34,
Digitally signed by
VEDAVATHI A K KERALAPURA VILLAGE AND POST,
Location: High ARAKALAGOD TALUK,
Court of
Karnataka HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.
2. REGIONAL MANAGER,
ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.36, A.N.R. CITY CENTRE,
RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD,
SAMPANGIRAMA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:17821
MFA No. 107 of 2023
REPRESENTED BY ITS
BRANCH MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.H.S.LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 19.04.2024)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO.738/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, 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 filed by the appellant - claimant challenging
the judgment and award dated 17.08.2019 passed by the
Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Channarayapatna (for
short 'the Tribunal') in MVC No.738/2018 for having awarded
compensation of Rs.3,78,920/- with interest at 9% by partially
allowing the petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.
2. The appellant was the petitioner and the Insurance
Company was respondent No.2 before the trial Court.
3. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their
status before the Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:17821
4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner filed
petition under Section 166 of MV Act for grant of compensation
of Rs.10 lakh for having sustained injuries in the road traffic
accident that occurred on 06.12.2017 at 6.30 a.m. near Nagesh
Hospital, Channarayapatna while she was going on the
motorcycle the driver of the offending vehicle-Maruthi Van
bearing No.KA - 13 - N - 8721 dashed the bike and caused the
accident. After the accident the petitioner was taken to the
hospital and treated as inpatient till 20.12.2017. She has
suffered injuries on the left ankle, loss of skin and also injury
on the upper lip and she also got amputation of 4th and 5th toe
of the right leg. Hence she has approached the tribunal for
grant of compensation.
5. The Insurance Company appeared and filed statement
of objections by taking various contentions and prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
6. Based upon the pleadings, the tribunal has framed the
following issues:
1. Whether petitioner proves that she sustained
grievous injuries due to actionable negligence on
NC: 2024:KHC:17821
the part of the driver of offending vehicle bearing
No.KA-13-N-8721 on 06.12.2017 at about 6.30
a.m. near Nagesh hospital road, Channarayapatna
when she was going on motorcycle bearing No.KA-
05-EB-4654?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation
as prayed in the claim petition ? If so, what
amount?
3. What order or award?
7. In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the
case, the petitioner herself examined as PW.2 and Dr. Lokesh B
S was examined PW.3 and got marked total 29 documents.
The respondents except cross examination did not examine any
witness nor produced any documents on their behalf.
8. On the basis of material evidence, both oral and
documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned
counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.3,78,920/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. as per the
following table, from the date of petition till the date of deposit
and also held that respondents are jointly and severally liable
to pay the compensation to the petitioner and directed to
NC: 2024:KHC:17821
deposit the amount within two months from the date of the
order.
Heads Amount in Rs.
1. Pain, shock and suffering 20,000/-
2. Loss of amenities 10,000/-
3. Loss of income during laid 15,000/-
up period
4. Attendant charges, diet, 12,000/-
conveyance etc.,
5. Medical Expenses 72, 980/-
6. Loss of future income 2,48,940/-
Total 3,78,920/-
9. Being aggrieved by the meager compensation awarded
by the tribunal, the claimant is before this Court challenging the
impugned judgment and award.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously
contended that the tribunal has committed error in considering
the income of the petitioner at Rs.7,500/-. She is an
NC: 2024:KHC:17821
agricultural coolie and aged about 39 years and she was
earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month. But without any
reason the trial Court has considered only Rs.7,500/- and also
contends that the compensation towards other heads - pain
and suffering, loss of amenities, laid up period are all very
meager including the attendant charges, therefore prays for
enhancement of compensation.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
supported the judgment. However, he admits the income
considered by the tribunal is less and he has submitted that the
income may be considered as per the guidelines of the Lok
Adalath and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
12. Having heard the arguments and perused the records,
the point to be considered is,
(i) Whether the income considered by the
tribunal at Rs.7,500/- is meager?
(ii) Whether the claimant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation?
NC: 2024:KHC:17821
13. On perusal of the evidence and records, the accident
dated 06.12.2017 occurred at 6.30 a.m. while the petitioner
was going on the motorcycle near Nagesh Hospital is not in
dispute. The Insurance Company has also not challenged the
judgment and award passed by the tribunal and challenged any
liability except objecting the same and not lead any defence
evidence before the tribunal. The petitioner has proved the
accident and the injuries sustained by her in the accident which
are grievous in nature as per EX.P14 - wound certificate and
the evidence of the doctor PW.3 and case sheet EX.P.21. The
petitioner was also admitted in the hospital from 6.12.2017 to
20.12.2017, for more than 15 days and there was partial
amputation of the right foot 4th and 5th toes and all these
injuries are grievous in nature. Considering the same the trial
Court though rightly recorded that the injuries are grievous in
nature, but while granting compensation in respect of pain and
suffering the trial Court has considered only Rs.20,000/-, but
there is no reason assigned for giving such a meager amount.
The two injuries are grievous injuries and the fourth injury was
partial amputation of two toes. Such being the case it is
necessary for this Court to enhance the compensation towards
NC: 2024:KHC:17821
pain and suffering to Rs.50,000/- as against Rs.20,000/-
awarded by the tribunal.
14. As regards the loss of amenities the trial Court has not
considered or given any reason for granting only Rs.10,000/-.
The petitioner being woman and she was admitted in the
hospital for 15 days she could have suffered amenities. Such
being the case this Court feels the loss of amenities also
requires to be enhanced to Rs.30,000/- from Rs.10,000/-.
15. With regard to the income, the tribunal has considered
Rs.7,500/- p.m. There is no reason assigned by the tribunal for
considering the income at Rs.7,500/- per month. Normally the
Courts are considering Rs.12,500/- per month as minimum
income of the person who has suffered injuries in the road
traffic accidents that occurred in the year 2018. Therefore, it is
necessary for this Court to enhance the income from Rs.7500/-
to Rs.12,500/- p.m. as the notional income of the petitioner.
16. With regard to the laid up period, the trial Court
considered only two months' laid up period. Therefore, this
Court enhances three months' period. If Rs.12,500/- is taken
NC: 2024:KHC:17821
as income for three months, the loss of income during laid up
period would be Rs.37,500/- as against Rs.15,000/- awarded
by the tribunal.
17. With regard to the attendant charges, diet,
conveyance, the trial Court has awarded Rs.12,000/-, which
also appears to be meager. The petitioner has admitted in the
hospital for 15 days. She could have been spent some amount
towards attendant and conveyance. Therefore, it is enhanced
to Rs.20,000/- instead of Rs.12,000/-.
18. As far as compensation awarded towards medical
expenses there is no dispute. Therefore, Rs.72,980/- awarded
by the tribunal is retained.
19. With regard to the compensation towards loss of
future income, if the income of the petitioner is considered at
Rs.12,500/- and the applicable multiplier is taken as '15' and
the disability to the whole body is at 18.44%, it comes to
(12,500 x 12 x 15 x 18.44 / 100) Rs.4,14,900/- as against
Rs.2,48,940/-.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17821
20. In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled to
a total compensation of Rs.6,25,380/- as against Rs.3,78,920/-
as mentioned in the table below:
Heads Amount in Rs.
1. Pain, shock and suffering 50,000/-
2. Loss of amenities 30,000/-
3. Loss of income during laid 37,500/-
up period
4. Attendant charges, diet,
conveyance etc.,
20,000/-
5. Medical Expenses 72, 980/-
6. Loss of future income 4,14,900/-
Total 6,25,380/-
21. Accordingly, I pass the following -
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The claimant would be entitled to the total
compensation Rs.6,25,380/- alongwith interest at the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17821
rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization
payable by the respondent Insurance Company.
(iii) The compensation amount to be deposited within
two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order.
(iv) 40% of the compensation amount awarded shall be
deposited in the Fixed Deposit as per the order of the trial
Court.
(v) Draw award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
YKL
