Partly allowed

Sri Hanumanthanaika v. Sri Shankara

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2022MFA/1189/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award, enhancing compensation from Rs.50,000 to Rs.1,22,640 based on calculated loss of income and amenities, and directed deposit with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.1,22,640/--; Interest fixed at 6% p.a. for enhanced portion and 7% p.a. for standard portion.

Sri Hanumanthanaika Vs Sri Shankara — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.1189 OF 2020 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. HANUMANTHANAIKA S/O. NANKYA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT DEVARADODDI VILLAGE, KYLANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK-560 093.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. TEJAS N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. SHANKARA S/O. LATE NAGAPPA, AGE MAJOR, R/AT: NO.786, 3RD DIVISION, HAROHALLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANGARA DISTRICT-562 117.

¶13

¶14

THE MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. III FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE NO.72, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.09.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 63/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, M.A.C.T., RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor

¶21

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2019 passed

¶22

by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Ramanagara in MVC No.63/2017.

¶23

¶24

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

¶25

briefly stated are that on 18.09.2016, the claimant was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-05-EJ-1403 as a pillion rider from SRS Hill towards his native. When the rider of the said motorcycle reached near the Sahukaradoddi village, Kailancha Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, at that time, TATA Ace bearing registration No.KA-42-A-3812 being driven by its 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.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶29

On service of notice, the respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

¶30

The respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-parte.

¶31

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and Dr. Raghunath R. was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. On behalf of the respondents, neither any witnesses were examined nor any

¶32

¶33

documents were produced. 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.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶34

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

¶35

Firstly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 30% limitation of flexion extension arc in the right elbow and 7.5% of Permanent Physical Impairment. But the Tribunal has failed to assess the whole body

¶36

¶37

disability and has not granted any compensation for loss of future income.

¶38

Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 4 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. Considering the same, the Tribunal has granted global compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶39

On the other hand, the learned counsel for

¶40

the Insurance Company has raised following counter contentions:

¶41

Firstly, he contends that the injuries sustained by the claimant is minor in nature and he was impatient only for a period of 4 days. He has not undergone any surgery and the fractures are fully

¶42

¶43

united and he has not assessed any whole body disability. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in considering the global compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

¶44

Secondly, he contended that the interest awarded by the tribunal at 7% is on higher side, contrary to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of JOYEETA BOSE –V- UNITED INSURANCE CO. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶46

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶47

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.500/- per day by working as Mason. He has not

¶48

¶49

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 2016, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.9,500/- p.m.

¶50

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained lacerated injury over the right arm below elbow measuring 6cm x 1cm x 1cm and tenderness on right hip region. PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 30% limitation of flexion extension arc in the right elbow and 7.5% of Permanent Physical Impairment. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor, PW-2 and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, I am of the opinion that the whole body disability can be assessed at 3%. The claimant is aged about 28 years at the time of the accident and

¶51

¶52

multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘17’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.58,140/- (Rs.9500/-1217*3%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶53

The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.9,500/(one month) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶54

The claimant was treated as inpatient for more than 4 days in the hospital and thereafter, has received further treatment. Hence, I am inclined to grant the compensation under the head of ‘conveyance, nourishment and attendance charges’ of Rs.5,000/-.

¶55

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to

¶56

¶57

suffer with the disability stated by the doctor throughout his life. Considering the same, I am inclined to grant the compensation under the head of 'loss of amenities' of Rs.25,000/- and under the head of 'pain and sufferings' of Rs.25,000/-.

¶58

Considering the nature of injuries, the global compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under:

¶59

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

¶60

following compensation:

¶61

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	25,000
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	5,000
Loss of income during	9,500
laid up period
Loss of amenities	25,000
Loss of future income	58,140
Total	1,22,640

¶62

¶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.1,22,640/-.

¶65

In view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in JOYEETA BOSE (supra), enhanced compensation carries interest at 6% p.a.

¶66

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 7% p.a. (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.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

Sri Hanumanthanaika v. Sri Shankara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Hanumanthanaika v. Sri Shankara

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

Smt Gangamma Vs Mr Suhail Khan

The Managing Director Vs Sri Vinay S P

Sri Vinay S P Vs the Managing Director

Deepa Vs Bharamappa

Subramanya. T Vs R. Dhananjaya

C Ajjappa Vs Iffco Tokio Gen Ins Co.Ltd