Karnataka High Court
Vinay @ Vinay Kumar K vs Nanjundaiah B on 11 April, 2017
Author: B.Manohar
Bench: B.Manohar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
MFA.NO.11756/2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
VINAY @ VINAY KUMAR.K,
S/O KRISHNA @ KRISHNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/AT VADERAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 562 159. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.K.SHANTHARAJ, ADV.)
AND:
1. NANJUNDAIAH.B,
S/O BOGANANJAIAH,
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT THUMBENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KYLANCHA HOBLI,
K P DODDI POST,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
& DISTRICT - 562 159.
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
NO.364/1, 10TH B MAIN,
SRINIVASA MANSION,
2
JAYANAGAR 3RD BLOCK,
BANGALORE - 560 011. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.C.SHANKARA REDDY, ADV. FOR R.2,
R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:14.8.2012 PASSED
IN MVC NO.87/2008 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, ADDITIONAL MACT, RAMANAGARA,
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -
JUDGMENT
Appellant is the claimant, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 14-08-2012 made in MVC No.87/2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanagara (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 3
2. In the claim petition, it was contended that on 15-08-2007, while the claimant was proceeding on Mysuru- Bengaluru road, near PWD Circle, Ramanagara, a Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. KA-42/H-75 came from Ramanagara side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. Due to the said impact, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to General Hospital at Ramanagara and as per the advise of the doctor, he was shifted to NIMHANS at Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient. He has spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- towards his medical expenditure. At the time of accident, the claimant was studying II year P.U.Course, and in addition to that, he was doing milk vending business and earning Rs.6,000/- p.m. In view of the injuries he has sustained in the accident, he has become permanently disabled to do any work. Due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending motorcycle, which was insured with the 4 second respondent, both the respondents are liable to compensate the claimant to an extent of Rs.50,00,000/-.
3. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the respondents entered appearance, however, the insurer filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also contended that rider of the Hero Honda motorcycle was not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. However, admitted the insurance policy. Due to the negligence on the part of the claimant the accident had occurred. No document has been produced to show that the claimant was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- p.m. by doing milk vending business. The compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.
5
5. The father of the claimant got examined himself as P.W.1, since the claimant had sustained head injury. The doctor who treated the claimant was examined as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P492. On behalf of the respondents, none of the witnesses were examined nor has any document been marked.
6. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties, taking into consideration the copy of the complaint and charge sheet and copy of the crime detail report, found that due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending Hero Honda motorcycle, the accident had occurred and the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. Hence, he is entitled for compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, in the accident the claimant has sustained head injury, CT scan shows that there is extra dural haematoma, for which he underwent surgery, craniotomy and evacuation on 15-08-2007. Once again, he underwent surgery on 6 16-08-2007 he was in the ICU on ventilation. He underwent tracheotomy on 21-08-2007. In spite of the best treatment, he was permanently disabled and he cannot lead normal life. The Neuro surgeon was of the opinion that the claimant is suffering from profound mental retardation and he assessed the neuro psychiatric disability to an extent of 100%. The Tribunal taking into consideration the injuries sustained and suffering undergone, and the expenditure incurred awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.10,84,813/- which is rounded of to Rs.10,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The claimant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has filed this appeal.
7. Sri.K.Shantharaj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that at the time of accident, the claimant was studying II year P.U. Course, aged about 17 years, income of Rs.3,000/- p.m., taken by the Tribunal while awarding compensation is lower side. Even though the claimant has not produced any documents with regard to his 7 income, the Tribunal ought to have taken reasonable income while awarding compensation. Further, even after seven years of the accident, the claimant is still under medication. A sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded towards future medical expenditure is lower side. The claimant was in the hospital for a period of 75 days. Somebody has to take care of him, he cannot lead the normal life. Hence, the compensation awarded under other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, sought for enhancement of compensation.
8. On the other hand, Sri.C.Shankar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and contended that taking into consideration injuries sustained and suffering undergone by the claimant, the Tribunal has awarded just and fair compensation. The appellant has not made out a case for enhancement of compensation and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8
9. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties.
10. The dispute in this appeal is only with regard to quantum of compensation is concerned.
11. The occurrence of the accident, injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident occurred on 15-08-2007 on Mysuru-Bengaluru road near Ramanagara is not in dispute. At the time of accident, the claimant was studying in II year P.U. Course and also doing part-time work. The Tribunal while awarding compensation had taken the notional income of Rs.3,000/- p.m. which is on the lower side. Even the income of the daily wage employees working in various Government Departments and the coolies working in the agricultural field is being assessed as Rs.4,000/- to Rs.4,500/- per month. In the instant case, the income of Rs.3,000/- p.m., taken by the Tribunal in respect of a student 9 studying in II year P.U. Course is lower side. Hence, I am of the opinion that taking into consideration notional income of the claimant as Rs.4,500/- p.m., applying the multiplier 18 and taking into consideration the disability to an extent of 100%, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.9,72,000/- towards future loss of income as against Rs.6,12,000/-. Even after ten years of the accident, till today the claimant is under the treatment. Hence, he is entitled to another sum of Rs.40,000/- towards future medical expenditure in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation awarded under other heads is in accordance with law. Hence, the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- in addition to Rs.10,85,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 14-08-2012 made in MVC No.87/2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanagara is modified and 10 the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-*