High Court allowed the appellant in part to enhance total compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal for motor accident injuries. Court modified heads for conveyance, loss of amenities, and loss of future income while affirming others.
Enhanced total compensation to Rs.4,65,818/- with interest at 6% p.a. payable within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.2087 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI PRADEESH KUMAR SHETTY S/O SADASHIVA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 25 EYARS R/O KARKADI JADKAL VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK-576101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.)
AND
2
VODERHOBLI KUNDAPURA.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.KRISHNA KISHORE, ADV. FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 06.12.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.478/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT UDUPI, (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA), KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
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 06.12.2018 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Udupi (Sitting at Kundapura), Kundapura in MVC
No.478/2017.
3
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 04.12.2016 at about 03.25 P.M., the claimant being a rider along with another as pillion rider was riding the motor cycle bearing Registratin No.KA-20-EB-9636 from Sigandhuru side towards Sagara side in a very slow manner and when they reached near Ikkeri Cross, Sigandhuru road, Sagara Taluk, at that time, the driver of the Maruthi Omni bearing Registration No.KA-15-M-1965 drove the same in a very rash and negligent manner came from Sagara side towards Sigandhuru side and dashed against the claimant’s motor cycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.
4
that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
5
compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
The respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-parte.
6
to a compensation of Rs.4,01,000/- 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.
Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was doing centering and electrical wiring work and earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.9,000/- per month.
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 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
7
compensation granted by the Tribunal under the heads of 'pain and sufferings' and other heads are on the lower side. The Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation under the head of 'loss of amenities'. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
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.
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 sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the overall compensation
8
awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable compensation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
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 in the year 2016, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.9,500/- p.m.
9
As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained comminuted fracture distal radius right, abrasion right foot and abrasion lower hip. PW-4, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered physical disability of 26% to his right hand. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor, PW-4 and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at 13%. The claimant is aged about 23 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘18’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,66,760/(Rs.9,5001218*13%) on account of 'loss of future income'.
The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 04 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for
10
compensation of Rs.38,000/- (Rs.9,500*4 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.
The claimant was treated as inpatient for more than 5 days in the hospital and thereafter, has received further treatment. Hence, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded under the head of ‘conveyance, nourishment and attendance charges’ from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/-.
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 suffer with the disability stated by the doctor throughout his life. Considering the same, I am of the opinion that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of amenities'.
Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.
11
following compensation:
| Compensation under different Heads |
As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) |
As awarded by this Court (Rs.) |
|---|---|---|
| Pain and sufferings | 50,000 | 50,000 |
| Medical expenses | 51,058 | 51,058 |
| Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges |
10,000 | 20,000 |
| Loss of income during laid up period |
37,200 | 38,000 |
| Loss of amenities | 0 | 40,000 |
| Loss of future income | 2,52,720 | 2,66,760 |
| Total | 4,00,978 | 4,65,818 |
| The Tribunal has rounded of th from Rs.4,00,978/-to Rs.4,01 |
e award amount ,000/- |
The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,65,818/- as against Rs.4,01,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 6%
12
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.
Sd/JUDGE
HA/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation quantum awarded by the Tribunal needs modification based on lost amenities and future income.
Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation for loss of amenities given the grievous injuries and surgery.
Whether the notional income assessment for loss of income calculation is correct.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Pradeesh Kumar Shetty
Sri K R Venkatesh Bhat
The United India Insurance Co Ltd
H. T. Narendra Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
