Partly allowed

Sri Sanjeeva Poojary v. Sri Vijaya Kharvi

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2022MFA/2086/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant appealed against the judgment of the Claims Tribunal in a motor accident case. The single judge held that since the claimed income lacked documentary proof, the notional income should be assessed at Rs. 9,000 per month per Karnataka guidelines. Consequently, the court enhanced the compensation under heads of 'pain and sufferings', 'loss of amenities', 'loss of future income', and 'lo

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 4,46,404/- to be deposited by the Insurance Company with interest at 6% p.a.

Sri Sanjeeva Poojary Vs Sri Vijaya Kharvi — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.2086 OF 2019(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SANJEEVA POOJARY S/O HARIYANNA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O "LEELAVATHI NILAYA" NAVUNDA VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK-576101.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . SRI VIJAYA KHARVI S/O KUPPA KHARVI MAJOR

¶13

R/O GOYADIMANE, KODERI KIRIMANJESHWARA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK-676101.

¶14

2 . UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD BRANCH OFFICE, KUNDAPURA SRI LAXMI NARASIMHA COMPLEX OPP:KSRTC DEPTO N H 66, VODERHOBLI, KUNDAPURA-56101.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.S.KRISHNA KISHORE, ADV. FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶17

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.01.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.687/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, MEMBER, KUNDAPURA, 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 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura and Member, Additional MACT, Kundapura in MVC No.687/2015.

¶22

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 26.05.2015 at about 06.30 P.M., the claimant was walking on the mud road portion near Navunda Bus Stand by the side of the Tar road on NH-66. At that time, the rider of the

¶23

¶24

motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-20-EB-0201 came from Byndoor side towards Kundapura side. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶25

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 riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.

¶26

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. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. The rider of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving licence as

¶27

¶28

on the date of the accident. The liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The age, avocation and income of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶29

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

¶30

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.Ullas Shetty was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On behalf of the respondents, neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of

¶31

¶32

rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,46,924/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶33

6. Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for

¶34

the claimant has raised the following contentions:

¶35

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was doing agriculture and earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.7,000/- per month.

¶36

Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He has examined the doctor as PW-2. The doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered 17% to the whole body.

¶37

¶38

He was treated as inpatient for a period of 19 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 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.

¶39

On the other hand, Sri S. Krishna Kishore, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised following counter contentions:

¶40

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, he has not produced any documents to establish his income. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.

¶41

Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. Considering the injuries sustained

¶42

¶43

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.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/- 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

¶47

¶48

in the year 2015, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.9,000/- p.m.

¶49

Due to the accident, the claimant has sustained reddish contusion of 7cm X 3cm on the back of the head with CT Scan sowing, reddish abrasion of 3cm X 2cm on left big toe. He has examined the doctor as PW-2. The doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered 17% to the whole body. 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 17%. The claimant is aged about 58 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘9’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,65,240/(Rs.9,000129*17%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶50

¶51

The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 4 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.36,000/- (Rs.9,000*4 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶52

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He was treated as inpatient for more than 19 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 Rs.30,000/- to Rs.60,000/- and ‘pain and suffering’ from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.

¶53

Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶54

¶55

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

¶56

following compensation:

¶57

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	30,000	50,000
Medical expenses	1,15,164	1,15,164
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	20,000	20,000
Loss of income during laid up period	23,240	36,000
Loss of amenities	30,000	60,000
Loss of future income	1,28,520	1,65,240
Total	3,46,924	4,46,404

¶58

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

¶59

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,46,404/- as against Rs.3,46,924/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶60

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

¶61

¶62

date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶63

This Court while condoning the delay, has denied

¶64

the interest for a period of 313 days. Hence, the claimant is not entitled for the interest for the delayed

¶65

period in filing the appeal.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

HA/-

Sri Sanjeeva Poojary v. Sri Vijaya Kharvi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sanjeeva Poojary v. Sri Vijaya Kharvi

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

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mahabala Poojary

Smt Shaha Taj Vs Sri Mahadeva

Murthy @ M S Murthy Vs Avinash H a

Sri Pradeesh Kumar Shetty Vs Sri K R Venkatesh Bhat

Sri Punith Kumar D M Vs Sri Chandre Gowda K S

Smt. Kempamma Vs Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation