Partly allowed

Teju Raj v. N Naga Reddy

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2021MFA/8211/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation awarded to a motor accident victim from Rs.1,00,500 to Rs.2,09,500. The court increased heads for pain and sufferings, medical expenses, amenities, and loss of income, but rejected a claim for loss of future earnings due to lack of disability evidence.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.2,09,500 with interest at 6% p.a. covering enhanced amounts for pain and sufferings, medical expenses, amenities, and loss of income during laid-up period.

Teju Raj Vs N Naga Reddy — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

¶8

M. F. A. No.8211/2015 (MV-I)

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

Teju Raj, S/o. Chaganraj, Aged about 24 years, R/at SIT College Hostel, Tumkur – 572 101. ...Appellant

¶11

(By Sri. Shantharaj K. Advocate)

¶12

AND :

¶13

N. Naga Reddy, Age Major, R/at No.331, 1^st Main Road, 2^nd Cross, Malleswaram, Bengaluru – 560 003.

¶14

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, No.65, Eshwar Complex, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Bengaluru – 560 021. …Respondents

¶15

(Sri. C.R. Ravishankar, Advocate for R2; Vide order dated 01.12.2015 notice to R1 is dispensed with)

¶16

¶17

This M.F.A. is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 03.07.2015 passed in MVC No.207/2012 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, MACT-XI, Tumakuru, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶18

This M.F.A. Coming on for order, this day, V. Srishananda J ., delivered the following:

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Claimant in this appeal has challenged the validity of the judgment and award dated 03.07.2015 passed in M.V.C.No.207/2012 by the Addl. MACT, Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’).

¶21

The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:

¶22

A claim petition came to be filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the I.M.V. Act contending that on 17.06.2011 Sri. Teju Raj (hereinafter referred to as the ‘injured’) was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-06 W-4498 as a pillion rider, when they reached near Aswini College, Maralur, Tumkur, at about 04.45 P.M., rider of another motor cycle bearing

¶23

¶24

registration No.KA-02 HE-2976 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle on which the injured was traveling whereby the rider and the pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries and they were shifted to the hospital. It is further contended that the injured has to spend huge sum of money towards the medical expenses and has also lost earning capacity due to the permanent disability sustained by him on account of the accidental injuries and thus, sought for awarding a suitable compensation.

¶25

In response to the notice issued, both the respondents appeared before the Tribunal and filed their objection statement denying the claim petition averments in toto and sought for dismissal of the petition. Based on the rival contentions, Tribunal raised the following issues:

¶26

1) Whether the petitioner proves that on 17.06.2011 at about 4.45 p.m. when he was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-06-W-4498 near Aswini College, Maralur, Tumkur he met with an accident due

¶27

¶28

to actionable negligence on the part of the rider of bike bearing Reg.No.KA-02-HE-2976 and sustained multiple injuries as contended?

¶29

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so what is the quantum?

¶30

3) What order?

¶31

In order to prove the claim petition averments, injured got himself examined as PW1 and relied on the documentary evidence which are exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. The main documents, Ex.P2 is Wound Certificate, Ex.P3 is the Certificate issued by Aditya Orthopaedic and Trauma Centre, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 are the Discharge Summaries, Ex.P6 is the Disability Certificate. Ex.P12 is the Salary Certificate issued by Motilal Oswal Financial Services Ltd. On behalf of the respondents, officer of the Insurance Company is examined as RW1 and R1-Investigating report is marked.

¶32

On cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,500/-

¶33

¶34

as compensation together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the realization.

¶35

It is that judgment which is under challenge in this appeal questioning the quantum of compensation.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant-

¶37

Sri.Shantharaj K., vehemently contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding meager compensation on all heads. He further contended that the Tribunal did not award any compensation on the head of ‘loss of future earnings’ on account of the disability sustained by the injured vide Ex.P6. He also contended that the Tribunal did not take into consideration that the injured has lost his job on account of the accidental injuries and suitable compensation be awarded on the said head. In support of his arguments he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ERUDHAYA PRIYA Vs. STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD., reported

¶38

in 2020 SCC ONLINE SC 601 and he drew attention to paragraph 10 of the said judgment and sought for

¶39

¶40

awarding suitable compensation on the head of ‘loss of future earnings’.

¶41

– 8. Per contra, learned counsel

¶42

Sri.C.R.Ravishankar, for the 2^nd respondent-Insurance company vehemently contended that the Tribunal has taken into consideration all relevant materials on record and passed an appropriate award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. He also contended that in the absence of the evidence by the Doctor who is alleged to have treated the injured, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim of the claimant on the head of ‘loss of future earnings’ and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Further, he also contended that the facts involved in the judgment of the Erudhaya Priya’s case referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant, are all together different from the facts available on record and thus, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶43

In view of the rival contentions, the sole point that would arise for consideration, is:

¶44

¶45

(i) Whether the quantum of compensation as adjudged by the Tribunal is just compensation?

¶46

The answer to the above point is in the partly negative for the following:

¶47

REASONS

¶48

In the case on hand, the injury sustained by the claimant-Sri. Teju Raj on account of the accident involving motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-06 W- 4498 and motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-02 HE2976 at about 04.45 P.M. near Aswini College, Maralur, Tumkur, is not disputed.

¶49

In order to prove the claim, injured- claimant got himself examined as PW1. He has produced Ex.P6 which is the Disability Certificate. But to prove, to what extent is the disability that the injured claimant has sustained, he did not choose to examine the doctor who issued Ex.P6-Disability Certificate or the doctor who treated him in the hospital. What prevented the injured in

¶50

¶51

placing such evidence on record before the Tribunal is not explained by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court also. It is seen from Ex.P6-Disability Certificate that the injured was required to review after an year to assess the exact disability sustained by the injured on account of the accidental injuries. Admittedly, injured did not got re-assessed about his disability after an year as mentioned in Ex.P6. No other evidence is available on record to show that infact the injured lost his job on account of the accidental injuries. No oral or documentary evidence is also produced by the injured-claimant to establish that he lost the job. On the contrary, it is found from para 18(d) of the impugned judgment that for the month of November 2011, he has received a sum of Rs.15,324/- as per Ex.P12. If at all the injured has lost the job as contended by him, he would not have received salary for the month of November 2011 as the accident has taken place on 17.06.2011.

¶52

¶53

These aspects of the matter has been properly appreciated by the Tribunal while passing the award. Tribunal has taken the monthly income at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per month for computing the ‘loss of income during the laid up period’. Further, on the head of ‘pain and sufferings’ also the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-. As per Ex.P2, he has sustained the following injuries:

¶54

Grievous: Grade I compound fracture BIB of (R+) leg

¶55

Grievous: Grade II compound comminuted calcarneum fracture (R+)

¶56

Grievous: Grade III compound medical malleoli (R+)

¶57

Grievous: Tibialis Pasterius tendur injury (R+)

¶58

Grievous: F.H.L tendur injured (R+)

¶59

In view of the injuries noted in Ex.P2, this Court is of the considered opinion that on the head of ‘pain and sufferings’, the injured is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.40,000/-. Insofar as ‘medical

¶60

expenses’ are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- and in this regard, the Tribunal has discussed

¶61

¶62

in detail in para 18(b) of the impugned judgment and has come to the conclusion that some of the medical bills produced by the injured-claimant prima-facie appears to have been created and there are no receipts for having paid such amount. But, having regard to the fact that the injured has sustained three fractures as per Ex.P2, it is appropriate to add another sum of Rs.25,000/- towards ‘medical expenses’. Under the heads ‘Conveyance charges’, ‘Food and Nourishment expenses’ and ‘Attendant Charges’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- each, which are enhanced to addition of Rs.5,000/- each. Insofar as the income of the injured-claimant is concerned, the Tribunal has computed and assessed the notional income at Rs.3,500/- per month. For an accidental claim of the year 2011, this Court and Lok Adalaths, would normally assess the income at Rs.6,500/- per month in the absence of formal proof thereof. In the case on hand, though the injured has marked Ex.P12 to show that he was earning monthly income of Rs.15,000/-, in the absence of author of the document being not examined, Tribunal has

¶63

¶64

assessed the monthly income at Rs.3,500/-. As such, the notional income if assessed at Rs.6,500/-, the injuredclaimant would be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.9,000/- on ‘loss of income during laid up period’. On the ‘loss of amenities’ Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-, which is on the lower side and on this score, claimant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.20,000/-.

¶65

We have carefully considered the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. Insofar as the ‘loss of future earnings’ is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the second respondent-Insurance Company, the facts involved in the said case and in the case on hand are all together different. Further, there is no evidence placed by the injured-claimant to assess the extent of disability and whether it is permanent or temporary. Under the said circumstances, we deem it proper not to award any amount on the head of ‘loss of future earnings’. Accordingly, in all claimant is entitled amount as under:

¶66

¶67

Accordingly, as against Rs.1,00,500/- claimants are

¶68

entitled to following sums:

¶69

1	Pain and Sufferings	65,000
2	Medical Expenses	65,000
3	Conveyance charges	10,000
4	Food and Nourishment expenses	10,000
5	Attendant Charges	10,000
6	Loss of income during laid up period	19,500
7	Loss of amenities and unhappiness	30,000
	Total	2,09,500

¶70

In view of the aforesaid discussion, point is answered

¶71

and we pass the following order:-

¶72

ORDER

¶73

Appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part.

¶74

In modification of the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,09,500/along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization as against a sum of Rs.1,00,500/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶75

¶76

Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal.

¶77

Insurance Company is directed to deposit/pay the compensation within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶78

Office to pass modified award.

¶79

Sd/JUDGE

¶80

Sd/JUDGE

¶81

Teju Raj v. N Naga Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teju Raj v. N Naga Reddy

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

Smt Shilpa Sreenath Vs v Rajendran

M/S Surya Chetana Poultry Farm Vs the Incom Tax Officer

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Anantha Refinery Pvt. Ltd.

C Kempamma Vs the Managing Director

Smt Geetha Paramahamsa Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Shri K v Subramaniam Vs the Income Tax Officer