Karnataka High Court
Sri Pradeesh Kumar Shetty vs Sri K R Venkatesh Bhat on 14 June, 2022
Author: H. T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H. T. Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.2087 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI PRADEESH KUMAR SHETTY
S/O SADASHIVA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 25 EYARS
R/O KARKADI
JADKAL VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK-576101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.)
AND
1. SRI K R VENKATESH BHAT
S/O K B RAMACHANDRA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/O KALASI VILLAGE
M L HALLI POST
SAGAR TALUK-572311.
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
BRANCH OFFICE KUNDAPURA
SRI LAXMI NARASIMHA COMPLEX
OPP:KSRTC DEPOT NH-6
2
VODERHOBLI
KUNDAPURA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.KRISHNA KISHORE, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED: 06.12.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.478/2017 ON
THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT UDUPI,
(SITTING AT KUNDAPURA), KUNDAPURA, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
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 and decree dated 06.12.2018 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Udupi (Sitting at Kundapura), Kundapura in MVC No.478/2017.
3
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 04.12.2016 at about 03.25 P.M., the claimant being a rider along with another as pillion rider was riding the motor cycle bearing Registratin No.KA-20-EB-9636 from Sigandhuru side towards Sagara side in a very slow manner and when they reached near Ikkeri Cross, Sigandhuru road, Sagara Taluk, at that time, the driver of the Maruthi Omni bearing Registration No.KA-15-M-1965 drove the same in a very rash and negligent manner came from Sagara side towards Sigandhuru side and dashed against the claimant's motor cycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded 4 that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
4. On service of notice, the respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle has appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent riding of the vehicle by the claimant himself. Both claimant as well as the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. The liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The age, avocation and income of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of 5 compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
The respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice 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 himself was examined as PW-2 and Dr. Dinesh Kumar Shetty was examined as PW-4 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P11 to Ex.P21. On behalf of the respondents, neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document on their behalf. 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 6 to a compensation of Rs.4,01,000/- 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, this appeal has been filed.
6. Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was doing centering and electrical wiring work and earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.9,000/- per month.
Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 5 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 7 compensation granted by the Tribunal under the heads of 'pain and sufferings' and other heads are on the lower side. The Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation under the head of 'loss of amenities'. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, Sri S. Krishna Kishore, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised following counter contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, he has not produced any documents to establish his income. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.
Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. He was treated as inpatient only for a period of 5 days. Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the overall compensation 8 awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable compensation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He has not produced any documents to prove his income. Therefore, the notional income has to be assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since the accident has taken place in the year 2016, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.9,500/- p.m. 9 As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained comminuted fracture distal radius right, abrasion right foot and abrasion lower hip. PW-4, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered physical disability of 26% to his right hand. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor, PW-4 and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at 13%. The claimant is aged about 23 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '18'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,66,760/- (Rs.9,500*12*18*13%) on account of 'loss of future income'.
The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 04 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for 10 compensation of Rs.38,000/- (Rs.9,500*4 months) under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.
The claimant was treated as inpatient for more than 5 days in the hospital and thereafter, has received further treatment. Hence, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded under the head of 'conveyance, nourishment and attendance charges' from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/-.
Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to suffer with the disability stated by the doctor throughout his life. Considering the same, I am of the opinion that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of amenities'.
Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.
11
10. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:
As awarded As awarded Compensation under by the by this different Heads Tribunal Court (Rs.) (Rs.) Pain and sufferings 50,000 50,000 Medical expenses 51,058 51,058 Food, nourishment, 10,000 20,000 conveyance and attendant charges Loss of income during 37,200 38,000 laid up period Loss of amenities 0 40,000 Loss of future income 2,52,720 2,66,760 Total 4,00,978 4,65,818 The Tribunal has rounded of the award amount from Rs.4,00,978/- to Rs.4,01,000/-
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,65,818/- as against Rs.4,01,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 6% 12 p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE HA/-