Partly allowed

Shivaraju B v. Umesha C S

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2022MFA/1111/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act challenged a compensation award for a road traffic accident. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, enhancing compensation under heads like pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, and future medical expenses, directing the respondent deposit Rs. 4,56,000.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 4,56,000. Insurance company directed to deposit amount with interest excluding future medical expenses within six weeks.

Shivaraju B Vs Umesha C S — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.1111 OF 2022(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Shivaraju B., S/o Basavaraju L., Aged about 38 years, R/at No.5/2, 7^th Main Road, Nandagokulaa, Gokulam 3^rd stage, Mysuru-570 002. … Appellant

¶9

(By Sri.Shantharaj K., Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Umesha C.S., S/o H.B Swamy,

¶12

Aged about 37 years, R/at Chikkahejjuru Village, Hanagodu Hobli, Hunsur Taluk-571105.

¶13

United India Ins. Co. Ltd., By its Manager, Motor TB- Hub, No.1134, Prince of Vales Road, Ballal Circle, Chamarajapuram, Mysuru-570 005. ... Respondents

¶14

(By Sri.Kishore Kumar Reddy, Advocate for R2; Notice to R1 is D/W V/O dated: 16.02.2022)

¶15

¶16

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated: 29.11.2021 passed in MVC No.618/2018 on the file of the Principal Judge, Court of Small Causes, as a Presiding Officer, MACT, Mysuru, C/C of Additional Court of Small Causes, Mysuru, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶17

This MFA, coming on for orders, this day, this Court, delivered the following:

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2021 passed by the Court of Additional Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru in MVC No.618/2018.

¶20

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 04.04.2018 at about 1.30 p.m. the claimant was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-45/K-1491. When he came near VMD Signal on Bogadhi main road, Mysuru, at that time, a car bearing registration No.KA-41/Z-0599 being driven by its

¶21

¶22

driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶23

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166

¶24

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.

¶25

On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statements in which the averments made in the petition were denied. The

¶26

age, avocation and income of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It was further pleaded that the quantum of

¶27

¶28

compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶29

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

¶30

Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and Dr.Nitin Srichand was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined but got exhibited document namely Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the 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.2,42,000/along with interest @ 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶31

¶32

6. Sri K.Shantaraj, the learned counsel for the

¶33

claimant has raised the following contentions:

¶34

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was

¶35

doing plumbing work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as only Rs.7,000/- per month.

¶36

Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 30%. But the Tribunal has erred in taking the whole body disability at only 10%.

¶37

Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of four days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to suffer the disability and unhappiness throughout his life. Considering the same, the compensation granted by

¶38

¶39

the Tribunal under the heads of 'pain and sufferings', 'loss of amenities' and other heads are on the lower side.

¶40

Fourthly, the doctor in his evidence has stated that

¶41

the claimant requires Rs.50,000/- for removal of implants. But the Tribunal has failed to consider the same. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶42

On the other hand, Sri Kishore Kumar Reddy, the learned counsel for 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, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 30% but the doctor has not assessed the limb disability. The Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 10%.

¶45

¶46

Thirdly, considering the injuries 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. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶47

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award.

¶48

It is not in dispute that the claimant has

¶49

sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶50

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. Due to the accident, the

¶51

¶52

claimant has sustained bony tenderness and deformity right leg middle 1/3^rd , abrasion wound right leg, type I compound fracture both bones of right leg. PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 30%. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor, PW-2 and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at 10%. The claimant was aged about 34 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘16’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.12,5001216*10%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶53

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He was treated as inpatient for more than four days in the hospital and thereafter, has received further treatment. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to suffer

¶54

¶55

with the disability and unhappiness throughout his life. Considering the same, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.40,000/-, 'loss of amenities' from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and 'loss of income during laid-up period' for a period of three months, i.e., Rs.37,500/-.

¶56

The claimant has examined the doctor PW-2, who in his testimony stated that the claimant requires about Rs.50,000/- towards ‘future medical expenses’. Hence, I am of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards 'future medical expenses'.

¶57

Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation

¶58

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

¶59

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:

¶60

	As awarded	As awarded
Compensation under	by the	by this

¶61

¶62

different Heads	Tribunal (Rs.)	Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	15,000	40,000
Medical expenses	71,500	71,500
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	2,000	2,000
Loss of income during laid up period	14,000	37,500
Loss of amenities	5,000	40,000
Loss of future income	1,34,500	2,40,000
Future medical expenses	0	25,000
Total	2,42,000	4,56,000

¶63

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

¶64

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,56,000/- as against Rs.2,42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶65

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. 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 excluding interest for the

¶66

¶67

compensation awarded under the head of 'future medical

¶68

expenses'.

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

Cm/-

Shivaraju B v. Umesha C S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaraju B v. Umesha C S

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

Ramesha Vs Premakka

Rathnamma Vs Premakka

Mr. Ramesh Vs Mr. Irshad Ahamed

Sri C P Nagaraj Vs Sri Chandrashekar S T

Noorjan Vs Mohammed Rafiq Gangolli

Smt Rajeshwari Bayi @ Rajeshwari Vs Sathyanarayana B.N.