Karnataka High Court
Sri Lingaraju vs Sri Kiran on 7 December, 2020
Bench: Alok Aradhe, H T Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA NO.6819/2015(MV)
BETWEEN:
Sri.Lingaraju,
S/o Late. Byregowda,
Aged about 44 years,
R/at Yaliyur Koppalu,
Dandiganahalli Hobli,
Channarayapatna Taluk,
Hassan District-573 201.
.... Appellant
(By Sri.Sathish Kumar, Adv.)
AND
1. Sri. Kiran,
S/o Devaraju, Major,
R/at Sri. Manjunatha Nilaya,
Opp. Dhanalakshmi Theater, B.M.Road,
Channarayapatna Taluk-573201.
2. The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance CO. Ltd.,
2
1st Floor, Madhu Complex,
Mysore Road,
Channarayapatna-573 201.
...Respondents
(By Sri. C. Shankara Reddy, Adv. for R2:
R1 is served)
This MFA is filed under section 173(1) of MV Act
against the judgment and award dated:15.04.2015
passed in MVC NO.1798/2013 on the file of the Senior
Civil Judge, at Channarayapatna, partly allowing the
claim petition for compensation and seeking
enhancement of compensation.
This MFA coming on for admission, this day, H.T.
Narendra Prasad J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.04.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 21.09.2013 at about 9.00 p.m., when the claimant was proceeding as a pillion 3 rider on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-13/U- 3842, on B.M. Road, near Navodaya Circle, at that time, the rider of the motorcycle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and capsized. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that he was working as LIC agent and was also an agriculturist and was earning more than Rs.30,000/- per month. It was pleaded that he also spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by its rider.
4. On service of notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel, but only respondent No.2 filed written statement in which the averments 4 made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that there was no rash and negligence on the part of the rider of the offending vehicle. It was further pleaded that the rider of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
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-1 and examined Dr.Ramakrishna Bhat as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 On the other hand, the respondents neither examined any witnesses, nor marked any documents. 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 rider, as a result of which, the 5 claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the respondent No.2 - insurance company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that at the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 42 years and he was working as LIC agent, and was also an agriculturist and was earning more than Rs.30,000/- per month. He has examined Dr.Ramakrishna Bhat as PW.2. The doctor in his deposition has deposed that due to the accident, the claimant has suffered 26% disability and due to the disability he was unable to do his day today work. The tribunal has failed to grant any compensation for loss of income due to the disability.
6
Secondly, he has contended that in the accident claimant has suffered grievous injury and he has underwent surgery and due to that he suffered lot of pain during the treatment. He has further contended that the compensation awarded by the tribunal for 'pain and suffering' is on the lower side. He has further contended that he was inpatient for a period of 15 days. He has examined the doctor. The doctor has assessed disability at 26% and claimant has to suffer disability and unhappiness through out his life. The compensation awarded by the tribunal for 'conveyance, nourishment' and 'loss of amenities' are on the lower side.
Thirdly, he has contended that even though the doctor has deposed that the claimant requires Rs.25,000/- for future medical expenses, the tribunal is not justified in awarding Rs.15,000/- under the said head. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal. 7
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. The fractures are reunited and the tribunal after considering the evidence of Dr.Ramakrishna Bhat and wound certificate - Ex.P3 has rightly granted compensation of Rs.30,000/- in the category of 'disability'. He further contended that the claimant has not proved that he suffered any loss due to the disability. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly not granted any compensation under the head 'future loss of income'. He further contended that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under the other heads are just and proper.
Secondly, he has contended that in respect of future medical expenses is concerned, the claimant has not produced any documents even before this Court to show that he has to incur expenditure 8 towards 'future medical expenses'. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the tribunal for 'future medical expenses' is just and proper. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the original records.
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has suffered injuries in road traffic accident occurred on 21.09.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by its rider bearing registration No.KA- 13/U-3842. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered the following injuries:
1) Laceration over right cheek;
2) laceration over left shoulder;
3) laceration over left palm;
4) Laceration over left knee;
5) laceration over inside left ankle; and
9
6) Fracture of left tibia and other bodily
injuries.
The claimant has examined the doctor
Ramakrishna Bhat as PW.2. The Doctor in his testimony has deposed that the clamant has suffered 26% disability over right lower limb. Taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and wound certificate-ExP3 and medical bills-Ex.P8, we are of the opinion that the whole body disability can be assessed as 18%.
Even though the claimant has claimed that he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, but he has not produced any documents to establish the same. Under this circumstance, to assess the notional income, as per circular issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident of the year 2013, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.8,000/- per month.
10
9. At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 42 years, the multiplier applicable to his age group is '14'. Thus, the claimant is entitled to Rs.2,41,920/- (Rs.8,000*12*14*18%) on account of 'loss of future income'.
Since the claimant was inpatient for 15 days and has undergone surgery, the claimant is entitled for compensation under the head 'loss of income during laid up period' for three months, which comes to Rs.24,000/- (Rs.8,000*3 months).
Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered the aforesaid injuries. He has examined Dr.Ramakrishna Bhat as PW.2. The doctor has deposed that the claimant has suffered 26% disability to the lower limb. He has to suffer disability and unhappiness through out his life. Taking into consideration the evidence of the doctor and wound certificate-Ex.P4, we are inclined to enhance the 11 compensation for 'loss of amenities' from Rs.10,000/- to 30,000/-. On all other heads, the compensation awarded by the tribunal remains unaltered.
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 25,000 25,000 Medical, conveyance & 80,000 80,000 nourishment expenses Future loss of income 30,000 2,41,920 due to disability Future medical expenses 15,000 15,000 Loss of amenities and 10,000 30,000 enjoyment of life Loss of income during - 24,000 laid up period Total 1,60,000 4,15,920 The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,15,920/- as against the compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- awarded by the tribunal.12
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Needless to state that the aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. (excluding future medical expenses of Rs.15,000/-) from the date of petition till payment is made.
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Mkm/-