Karnataka High Court
P Poune vs Ramakrishna B on 10 January, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1228
MFA No. 1317 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1317 OF 2020(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
P. POUNE,
D/O PUNIL,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT TADUBI,
SENPETI, MANIPUR - 795 104.
PRESENTLY R/AT
NO.202, PLAT NO.4,
6TH B MAIN ROAD,
21ST CROSS, EJIPURA,
VIVEKNAGAR,
BANGALORE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAGADEESH H.T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by V KRISHNA
Location: High 1. RAMAKRISHNA B.,
Court of S/O B. NAGESHWARAO,
Karnataka NO.171/A, NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE,
TEMPLE BANAHALLI,
CHANDRAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 081.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
KRISHI BHAVAN,
5TH AND 6TH FLOOR,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1228
MFA No. 1317 of 2020
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.N. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 08.07.2022, NOTICE TO
R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1875/2018 ON THE FILE OF XX ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND XVIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE AND M.A.C.T., BENGALURU (SCCH-22) SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 05.08.2019 passed by XX Additional Small Causes Judge and XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.1875/2018. This appeal is founded on the premises of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation.
2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:1228 MFA No. 1317 of 2020
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
That on 25.02.2018 at about 10.30 p.m., the claimant was walking on the side of road with care and following the traffic rules and regulations in front of INN Mark Store, Ganesh Temple road, 80 feet road, Koramangala, Bengaluru. At that time, rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-03-HV-7776 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger public and dashed against the claimant and caused the accident. Consequent to which, the claimant fell down and sustained fracture of both bones of right leg and other bodily injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to Malathi Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru, after first aid treatment, she was shifted to Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein she took treatment. The Police have registered a criminal case against the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-03-HV-7776 and filed charge sheet. On the date of accident, the claimant was 25 years old and she was working as a house keeping and getting income of Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to injuries sustained in the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:1228 MFA No. 1317 of 2020 accident, she became disabled and she is unable to do her work as she was doing prior to the accident and she suffered loss of income. Hence, the claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation.
3.1 On service of notice, respondent No.1 remained absent and he was placed ex parte. Respondent No.2-
Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and resisted the case of claimant by filing objection statement, wherein it has denied the issuance of policy in respect of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-03-HV-7776 and its validity as on the date of the accident. It is stated that the alleged accident took place only due to negligence of the claimant, who was crossing the road, where there was no zebra crossing and signal and herself dashed to unknown vehicle and also she has lodged false complaint against the rider of the offending vehicle after one day of the accident. The rider of the offending motor cycle had no valid driving licence on the date of accident. Respondent No.2 also denied the age, occupation and -5- NC: 2024:KHC:1228 MFA No. 1317 of 2020 income of the claimant and injuries sustained by her and also filed an application under Section 170 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is stated that the compensation amount claimed is highly exorbitant, excessive and unreasonable. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
3.2 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration.
3.3 In order to substantiate issues and to establish the case, the claimant got examined herself as PW.1 and the Doctor as PW.2 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P18. On the other hand, respondent No.2 has not led any evidence.
3.4 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.4,55,669/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the deposit of the amount and also held that respondent No.2-Insurance Company liable -6- NC: 2024:KHC:1228 MFA No. 1317 of 2020 to pay the compensation to the claimant and deposit the amount within two months.
3.5 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and award.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellant-claimant that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding meager compensation under all the heads. Hence, he seeks to enhance the compensation.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent - Insurance Company submits that the tribunal has rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for interference. Therefore, on these grounds, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for claimant and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company, accident occurred on 25.02.2018, age of the claimant was 25 years as on the date of occurrence of accident. The -7- NC: 2024:KHC:1228 MFA No. 1317 of 2020 income taken by the tribunal is Rs.10,000/- per month as notional income, no documentary proof is produced before the tribunal to show the income. However, the notional income chart of the Legal Services Authority prescribes the income of Rs.12,500/- for the accident of the year 2018. Accordingly, income is taken as Rs.12,500/-. The age of the claimant was 25 years at the time of accident. The tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier at '18', which does not call for interference.
7. PW.2-Doctor has opined that the disability to an extent of 38% to right lower limb and disability to the whole body at 13%, whereas, the tribunal assessed the disability at 12% to the whole body. PW.2-Doctor, who is an expert also opined that the disability to the whole body to an extent of 13% and the same is taken unless contra material evidence is placed and controverted by the Insurance Company. The age of the claimant was 25 years and appropriate multiplier would be '18' as contemplated in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi -8- NC: 2024:KHC:1228 MFA No. 1317 of 2020 Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. Therefore, the loss of future earning capacity due to disability would be Rs.3,51,000/- (Rs.12,500/- x 12 x18 x 13%) as against Rs.2,59,000/-awarded by the tribunal.
8. The tribunal has failed to award any compensation under the head loss of income during laid up period. The claimant having sustained fracture in both bones of right leg etc., and in view of this Court enhancing the income of the claimant to Rs.12,500/- from Rs.10,000/-, the claimant would require atleast four months period to recuperate and to get back to her normal day to day activities. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.50,000/- (Rs.12,500/- x 4) under the head loss of earning during laid up period.
9. The tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities and happiness. I deem it appropriate to award an additional amount of Rs.20,000/-. In all, the -9- NC: 2024:KHC:1228 MFA No. 1317 of 2020 claimant would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- under this head.
10. The compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads does not call for interference and the same is retained.
11. In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,17,469/- as against Rs.4,55,669/- as mentioned in the table below:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Pain and sufferings 40,000-00
Loss of future earnings due 3,51,000-00
to disability
Conveyance, attendant 20,000-00
charges and nutritious food
Loss of amenities and 40,000-00
unhappiness
Medical expenses 86,469-00
Future medical expenses 30,000-00
Loss of earning during laid 50,000-00
up period
TOTAL 6,17,469-00
12. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1228 MFA No. 1317 of 2020
ii) The judgment and award dated 05.08.2019 passed by XX Additional Small Causes Judge and XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and MACT, Bengaluru in MVC.No.1875/2018 is modified;
iii) The claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.6,17,469/- as against Rs.4,55,669/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization;
iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid by the respondent-Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
v) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact.
Sd/-
JUDGE CPN CT:SNN