Partly allowed

Sri Krupashankar v. Sri Yogesh H R

Karnataka HC19 Oct 2022MFA/243/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal under Sec 173(1) of the MV Act challenged the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal for a motor accident injury. The High Court enhanced the compensation from roughly Rs.2.07 lakhs to Rs.6.36 lakhs, increasing future income loss based on notional income, medical expenses, and amenities.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.6,36,600/- with modification of the Tribunal award and interest fixed at 6% per annum on the enhanced amount.

Sri Krupashankar Vs Sri Yogesh H R — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.243 OF 2022(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI KRUPASHANKAR S/O LATE MAHADEVU R/AT NO.356, 14TH CROSS 6TH MAIN, GOKULAM, 2^ND STAGE MYSORE-570002.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.TEJAS N., ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . SRI YOGESH H R S/O RAMANNA R/AT NO.28, 8TH CROSS 4TH MAIN, JAI MARUTHI NAGAR NANDINI LAYOUT BANGALORE-560096.

¶13

2 . THE MANAGER

¶14

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., 6TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN NRUPATUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADV. FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DATED:19.10.2022)

¶17

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.09.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.6780/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-4, PARTLY 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

¶22

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.09.2021 passed by the MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.6780/2019.

¶23

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

¶24

briefly stated are that on 05.10.2019 at about 01.45 p.m., the claimant was traveling in Car bearing Registration No.KA-09-B-9822 from Mysuru to Bidadi, when he reached near Rudrakshipura Gate, BM Road, Maddur, the driver of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-02-AG-8424 drove the same, in a rash and

¶25

¶26

negligent manner towards Bengaluru and took U-Turn suddenly without giving any signal. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶27

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 driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶28

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 age, avocation and income of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum

¶29

¶30

of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant.

¶31

Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

The respondent No.1 did not appear before the

¶33

Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-parte.

¶34

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.Nagaraj B. N. 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 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

¶35

¶36

compensation of Rs.2,07,800/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶37

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

¶38

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was doing tailoring work and earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.10,500/- per month.

¶39

Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-2. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 54% to lower limb and 18% to whole body. But the Tribunal has taken the whole body disability at 7%, which is on the lower side.

¶40

¶41

Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 6 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 other incidental expenses are on the lower side.

¶42

Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries, he undergone surgery. The doctor has suggested that he required Rs.1,40,000/for replacement of hip. But the Tribunal has not granted any compensation for ‘future medical expenses’. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶43

On the other hand, the learned counsel for

¶44

the Insurance Company has raised following counter contentions:

¶45

¶46

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.

¶47

Secondly, the doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 54% to lower limb and 18% to whole body. The Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 7%.

¶48

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 and it does not call for interference.

¶49

Fourthly, in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others –vVenkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on

¶50

¶51

24.8.2020), the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher side. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶52

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

¶53

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.

¶54

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 2019, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.14,000/- p.m.

¶55

¶56

As per Wound Certificate, the claimant has sustained dislocation of the right hip joint with bilateral inferior pubic ramus fracture and he underwent closed reduction and was on traction. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 54% to lower limb and 18% to whole body. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, I am of the opinion that the whole body disability can be assessed at 18%. The claimant is aged about 38 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘15’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,53,600/- (Rs.14,0001215*18%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶57

The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 02 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for

¶58

¶59

compensation of Rs.28,000/- (Rs.14,000*02 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶60

The claimant was treated as inpatient for more

¶61

than 6 days in the hospital and thereafter, has received further treatment. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to suffer with the disability stated by the doctor throughout his life. Hence, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded under the head of ‘conveyance, nourishment and attendance charges and loss of amenities’ from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.

¶62

The doctor in his evidence has stated that due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries, he undergone surgery. The doctor has suggested that he required Rs.1,40,000/for replacement of hip. Therefore, considering the evidence of doctor and considering the injuries suffered by the claimant, I am of the opinion that the

¶63

¶64

claimant is required Rs.50,000/- for ‘future medical expenses’.

¶65

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

¶66

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

¶67

following compensation:

¶68

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	50,000	50,000
Food, nourishment, attendant charges and loss of amenities	10,000	50,000
Conveyance charges	5,000	5,000
Loss of income during laid up period	10,500	28,000
Loss of future income	1,32,300	4,53,600
Future medical expenses	0	50,000
Total	2,07,800	6,36,600

¶69

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

¶70

¶71

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,36,600/- as against Rs.2,07,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶72

In view of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘MS.JOYEETA BOSE’, the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum.

¶73

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 9% p.a. (the 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.

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

HA/-

Sri Krupashankar v. Sri Yogesh H R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Krupashankar v. Sri Yogesh H R

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. Danamma Vs the Manager

N T Ranganatha Vs Gopalakrishna

Pradeep. B. v. Vs Ashwathappa

M Chethan Vs the Manager

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

J a I Victor Vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.