Karnataka High Court
Ningaiah vs Gowramma U on 18 July, 2022
Author: H. T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H. T. Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.6956 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN
NINGAIAH
S/O RANGAIAH
R/O SIDDAIAH NAGARA
3RD CROSS, HASSAN TALUK
HASSAN-573201
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BYRA REDDY, G.S., ADV. FOR
SMT.KAVITHA H C., ADV.)
AND
1 . GOWRAMMA U
W/O UMAPATHI NAIKA
SERI CULTUER MODEL GRANIGE
B M ROAD, DODDAMANDIGANAHALLI
KANADLI POST
HASSAN TALUK-573201.
2 . THE MANAGER
RELIANCE INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD
1ST FLOOR, KRUTIKA ARCADE
2
N R CIRCLE
HASSAN CITY 573201
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA C., ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED: 04.07.2022)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
24.06.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 164/2018 ON THE
FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING 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 dated 24.6.2019 passed by MACT, Hassan in MVC 164/2018.
3
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 23.9.2017 when the claimant was crossing the road by walk, near BM Road, Hassan Town, at that time, motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-13-EN-2995 being ridden by its rider at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. 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 that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.
4
4. On service of notice, the respondents appeared through their respective counsel and filed written statements in which the averments made in the petition were denied.
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 Dr.Sreeranga was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.256,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% 5 p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was doing agricultural and coolie work and earning Rs.25,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.10,000/- per month.
Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-2. Due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 16 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 compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental 6 expenses are on the lower side. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of 'loss of amenities'. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised following counter contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.25,000/- 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, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.7
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.
The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. He has not produced any documents to prove his income. Therefore, in the absence of proof of income, notional income has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2017, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m. As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained tenderness and swelling of left thigh and fracture of shaft of left femur and abrasion over left leg. Taking into consideration the deposition of the 8 doctor and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at 11%. The claimant is aged about 40 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '15'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.217,800/- (Rs.11,000*12*15*11%) 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 2 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.22,000/- (Rs.11,000*2 months) under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.
The claimant was treated as inpatient for more than 16 days in the hospital and thereafter, has received further treatment. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He has suffered lot of pain during 9 treatment and he has to suffer with the disability stated by the doctor throughout his life. Considering the same, I am inclined to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head of 'loss of amenities'. Further, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.
Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.
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 30,000 40,000 Medical expenses 10,000 10,000 Food, nourishment, 8,000 8,000 conveyance and attendant charges Loss of income during 10,000 22,000 laid up period 10 Loss of amenities 0 25,000 Loss of future income 198,000 217,800 Total 256,000 322,800
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.322,800/-.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 6% 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 DM