Partly allowed

Sri Sharanabasappa v. Bhavya N

Karnataka HC20 Oct 2022MFA/2216/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal order, the High Court assessed the appellant's notional income and disability percentage. The Court enhanced compensation for loss of future income, loss of amenities, and pain and sufferings, directing the respondent insurance company to pay the modified total.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced total compensation awarded to the appellant amounting to Rs. 600,800/- to be deposited by the insurance company with interest.

Sri Sharanabasappa Vs Bhavya N — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.2216 OF 2020(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI SHARANABASAPPA S/O SHIVAUTRAPPA VADEYAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT CHATRA VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562128. PERMANENT ADDRESS NIMBARGA VILLAGE GULBARGA DISTRICT.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.K P BHUVAN, ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . BHAVYA N MAJOR W/O NAGENDRA PARASAD R/AT NO.731 5TH CROSS, B B GARDEN ROAD FORT MOHALLA MYSORE-570004.

¶13

¶14

2 . UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD REGIONAL OFFICE T P HUB, 5TH AND 6TH FLOORS KRISHI SAMAJA BUILDING HUDSON CIRCLE BBMP HEAD OFFICE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001. REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. HARINI SHIVANANDA, ADV. FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.07.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.7144/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-18), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

¶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 dated 20.7.2019 passed by MACT, Bengaluru in MVC 7144/2018.

¶22

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 17.11.2018 when the claimant was proceeding as a pillion rider on TVS Jupiter Scooter bearing registration No.KA-04-JT-3578 near Railway gate U turn, Bidadi Town, B.M.Road, Ramanagara Taluk, at that time, car bearing registration No.KA-09-Z-5787 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.

¶23

¶24

The claimant filed a petition under Section

¶25

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.

¶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.

¶27

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

¶28

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶29

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was

¶30

¶31

examined as PW-1, one Rakesh M.S. as PW-2, and Dr.S.A.Somashekara was examined as PW-3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. On behalf of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document was 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.455,120/- 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, the present appeal has been filed.

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was doing mason work and earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.8,500/- per month.

¶35

Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-3. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 36% to particular limb and 18% to whole body. But the Tribunal has taken the whole body disability at 12%, which is on the lower side.

¶36

Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 12 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 awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and

¶37

¶38

other incidental expenses are on the lower side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶39

On the other hand, the learned counsel for

¶40

the Insurance Company has raised following counter contentions:

¶41

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.

¶42

Secondly, the doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 36% to particular limb and 18% to whole body. The Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 12%.

¶43

Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the

¶44

¶45

claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference.

¶46

Fourthly, in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others –v- Venkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 8% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher side. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶47

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

¶48

It is not in dispute that the claimant has

¶49

sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred

¶50

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

¶51

¶52

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He has not produced any documents to prove his income. Therefore, in the absence of proof of income, notional income has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2018, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.12,500/- p.m.

¶53

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained lacerated wound over right leg, compound fracture of both bones of right leg. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 36% to particular limb and 18% to whole body. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at 12%. The claimant is aged about 24 years at the time of the

¶54

¶55

accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘18’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.324,000/- (Rs.12,5001218*12%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶56

The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 3 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’.

¶57

The claimant was treated as inpatient for more than 12 days in the hospital and thereafter, has received further treatment. 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 inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of

¶58

¶59

amenities' from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.45,000/- to Rs.60,000/-.

¶60

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

¶61

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

¶62

following compensation:

¶63

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	45,000	60,000
Medical expenses	104,300	104,300
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	15,000	15,000
Loss of income during laid up period	25,500	37,500
Loss of amenities	25,000	40,000
Loss of future income	220,320	324,000
Future medical expenses	20,000	20,000
Total	455,120	600,800

¶64

¶65

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

¶66

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.600,800/-.

¶67

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 8% p.a. (enhanced amount shall carry interest at 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 compensation awarded under the head of 'future medical expenses'.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

Sri Sharanabasappa v. Bhavya N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sharanabasappa v. Bhavya N

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

Sri Krupashankar Vs Sri Yogesh H R

M Chethan Vs the Manager

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajanna S/O Siddappa

H.Vanajakshi Vs M.B.Manjunatha

Suresh Dhanashetti Vs M/S Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd

Mr Vinod K Vs Mr Kumar C M