Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Imran vs The Manager on 28 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43398
MFA No. 1645 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1645 OF 2021(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED IMRAN
S/O MOHAMMED SADIQ,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT NO.144/9, 11TH CROSS,
BEHIND GUPTA STORES,
NAGAWARA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 045.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.V. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MVC HUB, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS,
2ND FLOOR, M.G.ROAD,
Digitally signed by BANGALURU-560 001.
AASEEFA PARVEEN
Location: HIGH POLICY ISSUED BY ITS OFFICE
COURT OF (IN POLICY NO. 67140031180800011820
KARNATAKA DATE IF VALIDITY FROM
29-12-2018 TO 28-12-2019)
2. MR.SHAKTHIVEL B.,
S/O BABU V., MAJOR, R/AT NO.286-1,
18TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE,
PILLANA GARDEN, FRAZER TOWN,
BANGALORE-560 005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJAIAH K.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43398
MFA No. 1645 of 2021
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.12.2020 PASSED IN
MVC NO.2404/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII ADDITIONAL
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU, 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 DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.K.V.Naik, learned counsel for appellant as well
as Sri.Nagarajaiah K., learned counsel for respondent No.1.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is
rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, in
MVC No.2404/2019 dated 30.12.2020.
3. Arguing on merits of the matter, Sri.K.V.Naik,
learned counsel for appellant submits that, the appellant who
sustained injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred in the
year 2019 filed a petition claiming compensation. The Tribunal
through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.1,44,225/-
as compensation to be payable by the respondents. Learned
counsel further submits that though the appellant was not at
fault, the Tribunal gave a finding to the effect that the appellant
NC: 2024:KHC:43398
also contributed to the accident to occur and his contribution is
to an extent of 25%.
4. Learned counsel also submits that though the
Tribunal giving a finding that the compensation which the
appellant is entitled to is Rs.1,92,300/-, ordered the
respondents herein to pay 75% of the same i.e. Rs.1,44,225/-.
Learned counsel submits that the appeal is filed on two
grounds. Firstly, that entire negligence lies on part of rider of
the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.03 JW.5960 which
belongs to the second respondent herein. Secondly, that the
compensation granted is grossly low.
5. Arguing on the first point, learned counsel contends
that the Tribunal on its own assumptions held that the
appellant also contributed for the accident to occur. Learned
counsel states that no evidence whatsoever was produced by
the respondents to show that the appellant was at fault.
However, the Tribunal fixed contributory negligence
erroneously.
6. The submission that is made by Sri.Nagarajaiah K.,
learned counsel for respondent No.1 in this regard is that the
NC: 2024:KHC:43398
Tribunal subjecting the documents produced by the appellant
came to a conclusion that the appellant also contributed for the
accident to occur and thus the order of the Tribunal needs no
interference.
7. The case of the appellant as borne by record is that
on 13.04.2019 at about 2.05 p.m. while he was proceeding on
his Honda Activa vehicle bearing Registration
No.KA.53 EB.6494, all of a sudden a motorcycle bearing
Registration KA.03 JW.5960 came at a high speed being driven
by its rider in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against
his vehicle, due to which he fell down and sustained grievous
injuries. Undisputedly, the evidence of PW1 and Exs.P1 to P6
formed basis for the Tribunal to come to a conclusion with
regard to the aspect of negligence. Though the second
respondent took a plea that the appellant was negligent, as
rightly contended by Sri.K.V.Naik, learned counsel for appellant
no evidence whatsoever was produced by the second
respondent to establish the aspect of negligence on part of the
appellant. It is not in dispute that after due investigation, police
laid charge sheet against the rider of the respondent's vehicle.
NC: 2024:KHC:43398
8. Analyzing the evidence produced, the Tribunal
made a mention that it appears that the appellant was also
negligent. Assumptions and presumptions cannot form basis to
give a concrete finding. No evidence whatsoever is on record to
show that the appellant was negligent or he contributed for the
accident to occur. Nothing prevented the first respondent to
produce evidence to substantiate his version that the appellant
was negligent. However, no such evidence was adduced. In the
absence of any proof to show that the appellant was negligence
and he contributed to the accident to occur, this Court is of the
view that the Tribunal should not have attributed contributory
negligence on part of the appellant. Therefore, this Court holds
that the Tribunal erred in attributing contributory negligence to
the extent of 25% on part of the appellant.
9. Coming to the quantum, the version of the
appellant is that the sum awarded as compensation is grossly
inadequate. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded
compensation of Rs.1,92,256/- under the following heads:
NC: 2024:KHC:43398
Sl. Heads of compensation Amount in
No Rs.
1 Pain and suffering 20,000-00
2 Medical expenses 06,616-00
3 Loss of income during laid
09,000-00
up period
4 Loss of future income 1,16,640-00
5 Loss of future amenities
20,000-00
and happiness
6 Attendant, conveyance,
food and nourishment 20,000-00
charges
Total 1,92,256-00
Rounded of to 1,92,300-00
10. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained
fracture of 2nd and 3rd metatarsals of the right foot. PW2
assessed the disability as 34% in respect of right lower limb.
However, considering the totality of evidence, the Tribunal took
the disability in respect of whole body as 6%, which is
justifiable.
11. Though learned counsel for the appellant argued
that the appellant as a delivery boy was earning Rs.1,000/- per
day and his income was not considered, as rightly submitted by
Sri. Nagarajaiah K. learned counsel for respondent No.1, the
appellant failed to produce any proof either with regard to his
occupation or earnings as on the date of accident.
NC: 2024:KHC:43398
12. The Tribunal took the notional income as Rs.9,000/-
per month. However, this Court is of the view that the request
of the learned counsel for the appellant that as the accident
occurred in the year 2019 and as the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority is taking the notional income as Rs.14,000/-
per month, the said figure should be considered, is justifiable.
Thus, taking the notional income of the appellant as
Rs.14,000/- per month and without disturbing the other
parameters i.e. the disability in respect of the whole body as
6% and the appropriate multiplier to be applied as '18', the
compensation which the appellant is entitled to under the head
loss of future earnings on account of permanent physical
disability is as under:.
Description Amount
Rs.
Notional income per month 14,000-00
Annual income(14,000x12) 1,68,000-00
Apply the appropriate
30,24,000-00
multiplier '18'(1,68,000x18)
Loss of future earnings,
permanent physical
1,81,440-00
disability in respect of
whole body being 6%
13. Having considered the nature of injuries sustained,
this Court is of the view that the appellant would have taken
NC: 2024:KHC:43398
bed rest atleast for a period of two months. Thus, loss of
earnings during laid up period comes to Rs.28,000/-
(Rs.14,000/- x 2). Also considering the totality of evidence, this
Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to
compensation under the following heads:
Sl. Description Amount
No Rs.
1 Compensation for pain and
30,000-00
suffering
2 Medical expenses 6,616-00
3 Loss of earning during laid
28,000-00
up period
4 Loss of future earnings 1,81,440-00
5 Towards food, extra
nourishment, attendant 20,000-00
and conveyance charges
6 Loss of amenities in life 20,000-00
Total 2,86,056-00
Having discussed at length the merits of the matter, this
Court ultimately holds that the appeal is required to be
disposed of with the following
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, through orders in
NC: 2024:KHC:43398
MVC No.2404/2019 dated 30.12.2020 is enhanced from
1,92,300/- to Rs.2,86,056.
iii) Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable
to pay entire compensation to the appellant.
iv) The compensation awarded carries interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the
date of deposit.
v) Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the entire sum
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
vi) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
AP
CT:TSM
