Karnataka High Court
Sri Prabhu @ Ningaiah vs Smt Savitha on 19 July, 2022
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.147 OF 2022(MV)
BETWEEN:
Sri. Prabhu @ Ningaiah,
S/o Muddiah,
Now aged about 32 years,
R/at Palabovidoddi Village,
Harisandra Post,
Kasaba Hobli,
Ramanagara District-562 159. ... Appellant
(By Sri.Tejas N., Advocate)
AND:
1. Smt. Savitha,
W/o Nagaraju S.,
Major,
R/at NO.6, 6th Main Road,
5th Cross, Opp. Vijayanagar Club,
KSB Building, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore-560 040.
2. The Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Co.,
No.28, East Wing, 5th Floor,
Centenary Building, M.G. Road,
Bangalore-560 001. ... Respondents
(By Sri.Ashok N Patil, Advocate for R2:
Notice to R1 is D/W v/o dated: 19.07.2022)
2
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:07.10.2021 passed
in MVC No.800/2019 on the file of the XI Additional Small
Causes Judge & ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member,
MACT-12, Bengaluru, partly allowing the claim petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This MFA, coming on for orders, this day, this 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 07.10.2021 passed by the XI Addl. Small Causes and Addl. MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-12) in MVC No.800/2019.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 04.12.2018 at about 9.45 p.m. the claimant was standing on Magadi - Ramanagara road near Palavabovidoddi village, Kasaba Hobli, Ramangara. At that time, vehicle bearing registration No.KA-03/MZ-6787 being driven 3 by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to 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 driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
4. On service of notice, the respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. The age, avocation and income of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in 4 the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the accident was due to the negligence of the claimant himself. It was further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. It was further pleaded that the liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It was further pleaded that the quantum of 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-1, Dr.Venkataram Kumar K. was examined as PW-2 and Dr.Venkatesh R.P. was examined as PW-3 and got exhibited documents 5 namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. On behalf of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor got exhibited 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 driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,32,200/- along with interest @ 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 Tejas, the learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was doing cooking work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as only Rs.10,000/- per month.6
Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 9 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 and he has to suffer the disability and unhappiness throughout his life. Considering the same, the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the heads of 'pain and sufferings', 'loss of amenities' and other heads are on the lower side. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.
7. On the other hand, Sri Ashok N.Patil, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised following counter contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, he has not produced any documents to establish his income. 7 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 compensation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award.
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.15,000/- per month. He has not produced any documents to prove his income. Therefore, the notional income has to be assessed as per the 8 guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since the accident has taken place in the year 2018, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.12,500/- p.m. Due to the accident, the claimant has sustained fracture of shaft of left femur, fracture of left fibula and fracture of left superior public rami with ace tabular fracture. Considering the deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at 18%. The claimant was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '17'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,59,000/- (Rs.12,500*12*17*18%) on account of 'loss of future income'.
In view of raise in the income, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head 'loss of 9 income during laid-up period' has to be enhanced from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.75,000/-.
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 60,000 60,000 Medical expenses 95,000 95,000 Loss of income during 60,000 75,000 laid up period Loss of amenities 50,000 50,000 Loss of future income 367,200 459,000 Total 632,200 7,39,000
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. 10
The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.7,39,000/- as against Rs.6,32,200/- awarded by the Tribunal.
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.
Office is directed to send back the records to the Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-