Karnataka High Court
Sri. Vijay @ Vijay Kumar vs Sri. Sudarshana V. S/O Allenna Gouda on 20 October, 2020
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
MFA No.103323/2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VIJAY @ VIJAY KUMAR @
VARUMUNDAL VIJAY KUMAR,
S/O VARUMUNDALA MALLIKARJUNA
@ MALLIKARJUNA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
B.TECH, 1ST YEAR STUDENT,
R/O DOOR NO.23, WARD NO.20,
NEAR WOMEN'S COLLEGE, BALLARI.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.MANJUNATHA G. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SUDARSHANA V.
S/O ALLENNA GOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
DRIVER OF THE TATA INDICA VISTA,
LS CAR BEARING REG. NO.AP-22/TV-1730,
R/O NO.3-40/2, SHERPALLY VILLAGE,
PEBBARI POST, ALAMPUR MANDALAM,
MEHABOOB NAGAR - DISTRICT A.P.-50912.
2. SRI. EDIGA SUDHARSHANA GOUDA,
S/O E.PEDDA ALLENNA GOUDA,
-2-
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OWNER OF THE TATA INDICA VISTA,
LS CAR BEARING REG. NO.AP-22/TV-1730,
R/O No.#1-63, SHERIPALLY VILLAGE,
PEBBARI POST, ALAMPURA MANDALAM,
MEHABOOB NAGAR DISTRICT A.P.-50912.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
MAIN ROAD PARVATHI NAGAR, BALLARI.
... RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED 03.07.2019;
BY SRI. GANGADHAR HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF M.V. ACT, 1988
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.08.2016,
PASSED IN MVC NO.1269/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
MEMBER, III ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
M.I.ARUN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.0.2016, passed in MVC No.1269/2013, by the III Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ballari, (for short "the Tribunal").
-3-
2. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.04.2013 at around 10.00 a.m. the injured appellant stepped down from the auto and was proceeding towards GATES Engineering College and at that moment, the offending vehicle being Tata Indica Vista LS Car bearing Reg.No.AP-22-TV-1730 came from Karnool and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the appellant on the NH-44 Anantapur - Gooty road. On account of the accident, he suffered severe injuries and the accident has occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle and hence on the said grounds, the appellant claimed compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.
4. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant was pursuing his first year B.Tech degree course and on account of the accident, his academic career has been -4- disrupted and he has also suffered severe impairment both physical and mental faculties.
5. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that on account of the accident, the appellant has been rendered mental wreck and has lost physical and mental faculties and in fact treated surgeon i.e., Neuro surgeon has assessed at 75% the physical impairment to the whole body and he would contend that the appellant is mentally disabled. He would repeatedly contend that the appellant has lost his life on account of the injury suffered by him both mentally and physically. He would further contend that the notional income adopted by the tribunal is on the lower side and accident has occurred in the year 2013.
6. The Tribunal in the absence of proof of income, has assessed the notional income as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the purpose of settlement of claims -5- during the Lok-Adalath and notional income of Rs.7,000/- assessed by the tribunal, in our opinion appears to be more than just and correct and does not require any interference.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,63,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the tribunal erred in reducing the disability and only assessed disability at 50% to the whole body, which is contrary to the opinion of the treated doctor, who has been examined as PW-2. He would reiterate time and again that the medical opinion which has been culled out by the Tribunal in paragraph Nos.26, 27 and 28 would clearly demonstrate that the disability suffered by the petitioner is mental disability and that the life of the petitioner is totally wrecked.
-6-
9. In our opinion, the said contention that appellant is suffering from mental disability or mental impairment is contrary to the material on record. Firstly, the appellant has preferred I.A.No.5 before the Tribunal wherein application has been made to amend the claim petition by deleting the words "mentally disabled"; secondly appellant has got examined himself as one of the witness as PW-3; thirdly, he has readily instructed the appellant counsel to prefer the appeal; and lastly the Doctor - PW-2 has deposed in his cross-examination that the petitioner may be improved mentally. In paragraph 29 of the judgment, the tribunal held as under: -
"29. He has also deposed that as per gazette of India guidelines, the petitioner is having whole body disability at 75%. In his cross-examination, he has admitted the suggestion that the vital sign functionary and sensory system are normal; the memory may be normal. He has also deposed that according -7- to him, petitioner may be improved in his functioning to the brain."
10. From the foregoing discussion, it is apparent that the submissions of the appellant's counsel that the appellant is mentally disabled is patently wrong and contrary to the material on record. Hence, the said ground requires to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected.
11. With regard to disability, the other limb of argument it is seen that the Tribunal has assessed notional income of the petitioner at Rs.7,000/- per month, which is as per the chart prepared by the Lok - Adalath, in our considered opinion the same is misplaced. Even as per the claim petition, the appellant was a student that too pursuing his first year degree course. The materials placed on record does not demonstrate that the appellant was a meritorious student and that would have led to the path of prosperity. -8-
12. In fact, in our opinion the Tribunal has favorably considered the claim of the appellant and the award represents more than a just and reasonable award. In that view of the matter, the appeal being devoid of merits does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is rejected without being admitted.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE MH/-