Allowed

Sri Shekar v. Sri S Abhishek

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2021MFA/8898/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor vehicle accident claim appeal, the High Court increased the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The court upheld medical evidence proving 50% cognitive disability against the Tribunal's 5% assessment, leading to enhanced compensation for future loss of income and other heads.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 6,05,078/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition.

Sri Shekar Vs Sri S Abhishek — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶7

M. F. A. NO.8898 OF 2015 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. SHEKAR @ CHANDRASHEKAR, M.H. S/O HONNEGOWA, T., AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT MATHIKERE, SETTIHALLI POST, MALURU HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT: 562 160.

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI. S ABHISHEK S/O M.V. SUBRAMANYA AGE MAJOR, R/AT MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430.

¶14

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,

¶15

¶16

1^ST FLOOR, NO.1576, VISWESWARAIAH ROAD, P.B. NO.54, MANDYA-571 401.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 V/O DATED 09.12.2015 NOTICE TO R-1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC No.276 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the claimant against the judgment dated 04.07.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

¶23

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal, briefly

¶24

stated, are that on 05.03.2011 at about 10.20 p.m., the

¶25

¶26

claimant was traveling in a bus bearing Reg.No.KA-54-1899

¶27

which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and near Vaderahalli, the driver applied sudden brake due to which the claimant standing near the door, fell outside the bus and suffered grievous injuries all over his body. The claimant was shifted to Ramanagara Government Hospital and then to NIMHANS and then to KIMS Hospital for treatment. The claimant thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act claiming compensation inter alia on the ground that the accident has taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. It was further pleaded that the claimant sustained grievous injuries in the aforesaid accident and he is entitled to compensation of a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- along with interest.

¶28

Respondent No.1 did not file any written statement. Respondent No.2 filed written statement in

¶29

which the manner of the accident, age, avocation and income of the claimant was denied. It was further pleaded

¶30

¶31

that the policy was in force at the time of the accident and liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It was also pleaded that the driver of the bus had no valid driving licence to drive the vehicle.

¶32

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant examined himself as PW-1, and Dr.Jamuna Rajeshwaran was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. The Insurance Company has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. The Claims Tribunal, vide judgment dated 04.07.2015, inter alia held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries. It was further held that the claimant was entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,61,186/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶33

¶34

In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

¶35

The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that as per the evidence of PW-2, Dr. Jamuna Rajeshwaran, it is evident that the claimant had suffered cognitive disability to the extent of 44.6%. However, the MACT, without assigning any reasons, confined the same to 5%. It was further submitted that the claimant was employed as an attender in PES College and he lost his employment after the accident. It was also pointed out that the claimant was inpatient for a period of 27 days and therefore the amount of compensation awarded under the other heads is on the lower side.

¶36

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has pointed out that there is no evidence on record to show that the claimant has lost his employment after the accident and therefore the claimant is not entitled to any amount on account of future loss of

¶37

¶38

income. It is also submitted that PW-2, Dr. Jamuna Rajeshwaran in her evidence has stated that the claimant can discharge his duties. It is also submitted that the amount of compensation awarded is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶39

We have considered the submissions made on

¶40

both sides and have perused the records.

¶41

8. The only issue which arise for consideration is

¶42

with regard to the quantum of compensation.

¶43

Admittedly, the claimant was aged 32 years at the

¶44

time of accident. From perusal of Ex.P6 - wound certificate,

¶45

it is evident that the claimant has suffered the following injuries out of which four injuries are simple in nature and

¶46

three injuries are grievous in nature:

¶47

Laceration over left occipital region about 6 x 4 x 2 cm

¶48

Right Ear bleeding present

¶49

Multiple abrasions over dorsum of (L) Hand

¶50

Multiple abrasions over dorsum of (R) Hand

¶51

¶52

Abrasion over (L) lower back

¶53

Left scapula fracture

¶54

Shoulder joint managed conservatively

¶55

PW-2, Dr. Jamuna Rajeshwaran who is a Neuro

¶56

Surgeon has stated in her evidence that the claimant has sustained cognitive disability to the extent of 44.6% and the aforesaid version has been sustained even in the crossexamination as PW-2 has stated that the claimant has sustained 50% functional disability. Therefore, there appears to be no justification in restricting the disability to 5%. In view of the evidence of PW-2, Dr. Jamuna Rajeshwaran, we hold that the claimant has sustained cognitive disability to an extent of 50%. PW-2 has further stated that the claimant will have difficulty in performing his work with the cognitive disability sustained by him in the accident. The claimant, therefore, is held entitled to a sum of Rs.4,08,768/- (Rs.4258 x 50% x 12 x 16/100) under the head 'loss of future income'.

¶57

¶58

The claimant has incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs.63,810/- which has been awarded by the Tribunal, which we maintain in this appeal. However, a paltry sum of Rs.30,000/- has been awarded on account of pain and sufferings which is enhanced to Rs.60,000/-. Taking into account the fact that the claimant has sustained functional disability to the extent of 50%, the amount under the head 'loss of amenities' is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. Since the appellant has received treatment for a period of 27 days as an inpatient, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards nourishment and attendant charges and a sum of Rs.7,500/- is awarded towards conveyance charges. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.6,05,078/-.

¶59

Needless to state that the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment is made.

¶60

To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶61

¶62

In the result, the appeal is disposed of.

¶63

SD/JUDGE

¶64

SD/JUDGE

¶65

Sri Shekar v. Sri S Abhishek

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shekar v. Sri S Abhishek

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

The Manager Vs Narayana Swamy

Sir B S Suresh Vs Smt Arundhathi S Rao

M/S R K Developers Vs Income Tax Officer

Smt Anith D Souza Vs MD Abdul Reheman

B v Madhu Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

The State of Karnataka Vs T Raghavendra