Karnataka High Court
M. S. Kumaraswamy vs Sri. Chidananda. M. G on 29 May, 2024
-1-
MFA No. 4765 of 2018
NC: 2024:KHC:17997
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
M.F.A NO.4765 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
M.S. KUMARASWAMY
W/O SIDDAPPA @ SIDDALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/A MUTTUGADUR VILLAGE
HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DIST
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. CHIDANANDA. M.G.
S/O GURUSHANTHAPPA M S
AGE: MAJOR
R/A MUTTUGADUR VILLAGE
B DURGA HOBLI, HOLALKERE TALUK
Digitally OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-16/S-8501
signed by
MADHURI S
Location:
2. THE MANAGER
High Court RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANE CO. LTD.,
of Karnataka NOS.1 & 2, 1ST FLOOR, MANGANUR COMPLEX
NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND
CHITRADURGA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 24.11.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & M.A.C.T, HOLALKERE IN
MVC NO.551/2016 DATED 25.01.2018 AND ENHANCE THE
-2-
MFA No. 4765 of 2018
NC: 2024:KHC:17997
COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE PETITION BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by petitioner under Section
173(1) of M.V.Act, seeking enhancement of the
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor
vehicle accident dated 11.02.2015.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.
3. FACTS: It is the case of the petitioner that on
11.02.2015, at about 6.30 p.m., after grazing his
she-buffaloes, he was proceeding towards his house.
When he was in front of Sasalu Railway quarters, Sasalu
Village, Holalkere Taluk, rider of the Bajaj Discover Motor
Cycle bearing registration No.KA-16-S-8501 (for short
'Offending vehicle') came in a rash or negligent manner
and dashed against the petitioner. As a result of the
impact, petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. Despite
NC: 2024:KHC:17997
prolonged treatment, petitioner is not completely cured.
As the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle,
respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation and hence, the petition.
4. Despite due service of notice, respondent No.1
remained absent and as such, placed exparte by the
Tribunal.
5. Respondent No.2 has appeared and filed written
statement denying the cause of accident, age, occupation,
income and nature of the injuries suffered by the
petitioner and that they have resulted in permanent partial
disability. In addition, respondent No.2 has further
pleaded that at the time of accident, the driver of the
offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license
and as such, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the
compensation and prays to dismiss the petition.
6. Based on these pleadings, Tribunal has framed
necessary issues.
NC: 2024:KHC:17997
7. Petitioner has examined himself as PW-1, and
has got marked Exs.P1 to 31.
8. On behalf of respondent No.2, one witness is
examined as RW-1 and Ex.R-1 is marked.
9. Vide the impugned judgment and award, the
Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition granting
compensation in a sum of Rs.1,82,235/- with interest
@6% p.a. and directed respondent No.2 to pay the same.
The details of compensation granted are as under:
Heads Amount
In Rs.
Treatment and Hospitalization 9,915
expenses
Attendant charges, nourishment 10,000
and diet food
Loss of amenities 10,000
Loss of earning during the laid up 10,000
period of treatment
Pain and suffering 25,000
Conveyance charges 5,000
Loss of future earnings on 1,12,320
account of permanent disability
TOTAL 1,82,235
NC: 2024:KHC:17997
10. Respondents have not challenged the impugned
judgment and award.
11. The petitioner has challenged the impugned
judgment and award contending that the notional income
considered by the Tribunal as well as the percentage of
disability taken is on the lower side. The compensation
granted under the other heads is also on the lower side
and prays to allow the appeal and enhance the
compensation.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel
representing respondent No.2 supported the impugned
judgment and award and sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
13. Heard arguments and perused the records.
14. Having regard to the fact that respondents have
not challenged the impugned judgment and award, the
findings of the Tribunal that accident occurred due to the
rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle and in
NC: 2024:KHC:17997
the said accident, petitioner sustained grievous injuries
resulting in permanent partial disability has attained
finality.
15. Based on the material placed on record, the
Tribunal has rightly taken the age of petitioner as 50 years
and therefore, the multiplier 13 considered is appropriate.
Though the petitioner has claimed that he was earning
Rs.20,000/- per month, in the absence of evidence to
prove the said fact, the Tribunal has taken his income at
Rs.6,000/- per month. Since the accident is of the year
2015, based on minimum wages, the notional income is
ought to have been taken at Rs.9,000/- per month. Based
on the disability certificate at Ex.P30, the Tribunal has
rightly taken the disability at 12% of the whole body. With
these components, compensation under the head 'loss of
future income' is Rs.9,000/- x 12 x 13 x 12% =
Rs.1,68,480/- as against Rs.1,12,320/- granted by the
Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:17997
16. Having regard to the nature of the injuries
sustained and the fact that it has resulted in disability, this
Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner is entitled
for compensation in a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head
'Pain and Suffering' as against Rs.25,000/- and
Rs.20,000/- under the head 'Loss of amenities' as against
Rs.10,000/- granted by the Tribunal. However, Rs.5,000/-
granted under the head 'Conveyance charges' and
Rs.10,000/- granted under the head 'Attendant charges' is
correct.
17. Since the petitioner has suffered fracture, it is
reasonable to expect that he was under treatment for two
months and therefore, at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per
month, for a period of two months under the head 'Laid up
period', petitioner is entitled for compensation in a sum of
Rs.18,000/- as against Rs.10,000/- granted by the
Tribunal. Based on medical bills, the Tribunal has rightly
granted compensation in a sum of Rs.9,915/- under the
head 'treatment and hospitalization' and it requires no
interference.
NC: 2024:KHC:17997
18. Thus, in all petitioner is entitled for total
compensation in a sum of Rs.2,71,395/- as against
Rs.1,82,235/- granted by the Tribunal as detailed below:
Heads Amount granted Amount granted
by the Tribunal by this Court
In Rs. In Rs.
Treatment and 9,915 9,915
Hospitalization
expenses
Attendant charges, 10,000 10,000
nourishment and diet
food
Loss of amenities 10,000 20,000
Loss of earning 10,000 18,000
during the laid up
period of treatment
Pain and suffering 25,000 40,000
Conveyance charges 5,000 5,000
Loss of future 1,12,320 1,68,480
earnings on account
of permanent
disability
TOTAL 1,82,235 2,71,395
19. Of course, petitioner is entitled for interest at
the rate of interest at 6% p.a. on the enhanced
compensation.
20. As the insurer respondent No.2 is liable to pay
the compensation with accrued interest and accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following:
NC: 2024:KHC:17997
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) Petitioner is entitled for compensation in a
sum of Rs.2,71,395/- as against
Rs.1,82,235/- granted by the Tribunal
together with interest at 6% p.a. on the
enhanced compensation.
(iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to pay the
compensation together with interest at
6% p.a from the date of petition till
realization (minus the amount already
paid/deposited) within a period of six
weeks from the date of this order.
(iv) The Registry is directed to send copy of
this judgment to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MDS
