Partly allowed

Revanna v. Keshava Murthy M C

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2022MFA/1066/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the appellant's appeal partly, enhancing the total compensation from Rs. 3,88,249 to Rs. 5,13,409 based on revised notional income, disability percentage, and suffering, while correcting the interest rate to 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Claimant granted enhanced total compensation of Rs. 5,13,409 with interest at 6% p.a.; Insurance Company directed to deposit within six weeks.

Revanna Vs Keshava Murthy M C — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

MFA No.1066 OF 2021(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

REVANNA S/O HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/A NO. 581, GANGONDANAHALI BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU 562123.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. RAGHU R., ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . KESHAVA MURTHY M.C. MAJOR S/O CHIKKAKEMPAIAH R/A MINNAPURA NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT 562123.

¶13

2 . THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 2ND FLOOR, S M TOWERS 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK JAYANAGARAA,BENGALURU 560011

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.LAKSHMINARAYAN C., ADV. FOR R2:

¶16

¶17

NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 14.10.2022.)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.3082/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-18, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’,

¶22

for short) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.01.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.3082/2019.

¶23

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

¶24

briefly stated are that on 26.10.2018 at about 01.45

¶25

p.m., the claimant along with one Huchegowda were proceeding in a bike bearing Registration No.KA-04-

¶26

¶27

HQ-2289 from Kodipalya Village towards Tumkuru at NH-4 service road, near Kodipalya Lake Gate slowly on the left side of the road, at that time, the driver of the Canter bearing Registration No.KA-01-AE-6778 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endangering to human life, dashed against the bike. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶28

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.

¶29

¶30

On service of summons, the respondent

¶31

Nos.1 and 2 have appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. The age, occupation and income of the deceased are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶33

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant, in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW-2 and Dr.Ramesh B was examined as PW-3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. On behalf of respondents, neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the

¶34

¶35

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.3,88,249/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶36

The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions:

¶37

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was doing bar bending work and earning Rs.15,000/per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.8,500/- per month.

¶38

Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 5 days. Even after discharge

¶39

¶40

from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the same, the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other heads are on the lower side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶41

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for

¶42

the Insurance Company has raised following counter contentions:

¶43

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. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.

¶44

Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. He was treated as inpatient only for a period of 5 days. Considering the injuries

¶45

¶46

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.

¶47

Lastly, in view of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020) , the claimants are entitled for 6% interest but the Tribunal has granted 8% interest which is on the higher side. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶48

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶49

and perused the records.

¶50

It is not in dispute that the claimant has

¶51

sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred

¶52

¶53

due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶54

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 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.

¶55

As per Wound Certificate, the claimant has sustained fracture of both bones of right knee type I compound. He has examined the doctor as PW-3. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor, PW-3 and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at 12%. The claimant is aged about 35 years at the time of the accident and

¶56

¶57

multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘16’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,88,000/- (Rs.12,5001216*12%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶58

The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 03 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.37,500/- (Rs.12,500*3 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶59

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He was treated as inpatient for more than 5 days in the hospital. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to suffer with the disability stated by the doctor throughout his life. Considering the same, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of amenities' from

¶60

¶61

Rs.25,000/- to Rs.35,000/- and ‘pain and suffering’ from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.

¶62

Considering the nature of injuries, the

¶63

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶64

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

¶65

following compensation:

¶66

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	40,000	50,000
Medical expenses	72,909	72,909
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	10,000	10,000
Loss of income during laid up period	25,500	37,500
Loss of amenities	25,000	35,000
Loss of future income	1,94,840	2,88,000
Future medical expenses	20,000	20,000
Total	3,88,249	5,13,409

¶67

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part . The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶68

¶69

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,13,409/- as against Rs.3,88,249/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶70

In view of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘MS.JOYEETA BOSE’, the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum.

¶71

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 8% p.a. (the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum) 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.

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

HA/-

Revanna v. Keshava Murthy M C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Revanna v. Keshava Murthy M C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Gadag Vs M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd.

R Venugopala Krishna Vs Manjunatha T C

Shivaraju B Vs Umesha C S

Hucchamma Vs Muniraju

Sri G Nandeesh Vs Sri Surendra Kumar

Sri G Nandeesh Vs Sri G H Narasimha Raju