Partly allowed

Harish M S v. Balaji B

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2021MFA/3428/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident compensation appeal, the Hon'ble Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court modified the Tribunal's award. Finding no evidence of the appellant's actual income, the court assessed notional income at Rs. 9,500/month. While accepting the Tribunal's 15% body disability assessment (disapproving the doctors' 44% limb assessment), the court enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 11,

What did the court decide?

The total compensation was fixed at Rs. 11,13,700/-, enhanced by Rs. 61,200/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing.

Harish M S Vs Balaji B — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

M.F.A. NO.3428 OF 2020 (MV-I)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

HARISH M S S/O SHIVARAJU M B AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT MODURU VILLAGE HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶11

... APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI SYED ABDUL SABOOR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

BALAJI B S/O ARUNACHALAM C AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 74/A, NEHRU STREET VEERAPANCHATHIRAM ERODE, TAMIL NADU.

¶15

SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., V.C.T.V. MAIN ROAD, SATHYA ROAD ERODE, TAMIL NADU.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;

¶18

NOTICE TO R-1 IS D/W)

¶19

¶20

¶21

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.04.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.330/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, PRL. SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, against the judgment and award dated 15.04.2019 in MVC.No.330/2016 passed by the Prl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysuru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).

¶25

Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated

¶26

are that on 30.01.2016 at about 11.30 a.m., the claimant, when he was riding his motor cycle along with his two minor daughters proceeding towards Hunsur very slowly and cautiously by following all the traffic rules, at that time, the respondent No.1 - driver of the Maxi cab came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant. Due to the accident, the

¶27

¶28

claimant along with his daughters fell down and sustained grievous injuries.

¶29

The claimant thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act inter alia on the ground that the claimant after the accident, he was shifted to Government hospital, Hunsur and then shifted to Subhodaya hospital and thereafter shifted to BGS Apollo Hospital, Mysuru wherein he took treatment as an inpatient and undergone surgery. It is also pleaded that the claimant has spent more than Rs.10,00,000/- towards medical expenses. It was also claimed that the claimant is a mason by avocation and also doing agricultural work and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the impact of the accident, the claimant is unable to carry on with the work as before. It was also pleaded that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Maxi cab. The claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.59,30,000/along with interest.

¶30

The respondent - Insurance company appeared

¶31

through their counsel and filed written statement, inter alia,

¶32

¶33

in which, the mode and manner of the accident was denied.

¶34

The age, occupation, income and injuries sustained by the claimant were denied. It is further submitted that the offending vehicle was insured with its company. It was also pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. It was also pleaded that liability of the Insurance Company to the compensation, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It was also stated that the compensation claimed by the claimant is highly excessive, speculative and exorbitant.

¶35

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant, in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW-1 and two doctors were examined as P.W.4 and P.W.5 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P30. The respondents neither examined any witness nor got exhibited any document.

¶36

¶37

The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter

¶38

alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Maxi cab 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.10,53,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

¶39

Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimant was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the claimant as Rs.7,500/- per month and in any case, the same ought to have been taken as per the guidelines framed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. It is also submitted that the Tribunal erred in assessing the functional disability at 15% instead of 44%. It is also urged that the amount of compensation awarded under all the other heads is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably.

¶40

¶41

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that no evidence has been adduced by the claimant to prove his income before the Tribunal and that the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.7,500/- per month and assessed the disability at 15%. It is further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all the heads is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶42

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

¶43

Admittedly, the claimant has not produced any evidence with regard to his income. Therefore, the notional income of the claimant is to be assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. Since the accident is of the year 2016, notional income comes to Rs.9,500/- per month. The doctors who were examined as PWs.4 and 5 have stated that the claimant has

¶44

¶45

suffered the disability at 44% with respect to his limb. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the functional disability at 15% to the whole body. In the absence of contrary evidence, the disability assessed by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. Hence, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,90,700/- (Rs.9,500 x 12 x 17 x 15%).

¶46

The compensation awarded under the other conventional heads is just and proper and the same is maintained.

¶47

Thus the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.11,13,700/-. The enhanced compensation Rs.61,200/shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization of the amount. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the claims Tribunal is modified.

¶48

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

bkm

Harish M S v. Balaji B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish M S v. Balaji B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bangalore Development Authority Vs Sri.L.Chandrashekar

M/S. Adarsh Developers Vs Smt. Suman Rupanagudi

Sri S Jagannath Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority

Lakshmi Prabhu Vs Krishna Raj Saralaya

Harish(Since Deceased) Vs Jhonshon Bangera

M/S Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Vs the State of Karnataka