Partly allowed

Smt Nagarathna H v. Sri Prakash a S

Karnataka HC13 Jun 2022MFA/247/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the appeal partly against the Awards of the Claims Tribunal (MACT) in a motor accident case, enhancing the total compensation from Rs. 3,65,300 to Rs. 6,35,580 due to higher disability rating, loss of future income, and treatment charges.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 635,580/-; Insurance company directed to deposit within six weeks with interest at 9% p.a. but enhanced amount at 6% p.a.

Smt Nagarathna H Vs Sri Prakash a S — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.247 OF 2022(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SMT NAGARATHNA H W/O DHANANJAYA R AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT NO.62, LALITHA NILAYA 15^TH CROSS, 2^ND MAIN HELTHA LAYOUT NAGARBHAVI 2^ND STAGE BANGALORE – 560072.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.TEJAS N., ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . SRI PRAKASH A S S/O SANJIVAIAH AGE MAJOR

¶13

R/AT NO.22, SRI RAMANAGAR KAMAKSHIPALYA BANGALORE – 560079.

¶14

2 . SMT. GIRIJA V

¶15

¶16

MAJOR R/AT NO.86, SIGEHALLI GATE ARKAVATHI GATE MANCHANBELE COLONY KADABAGERE BANGALORE – 562130.

¶17

3 . THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., 6^TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN NRUPATUNGA ROAD BANGALORE – 560001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.S.KRISHNA KISHORE, ADV. FOR R3: NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.12.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.2493/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-11, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

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 20.12.2019 passed by MACT, Bangalore in MVC 2493/2019.

¶25

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

¶26

briefly stated are that on 17.2.2019, when the claimant was riding a two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-02-JC-1391 from her native to her house in Bangalore and when reached near Magadi Road wing, Doddagollarahatti, at that time, Tata Sumo bearing registration No.KA-02-N-7851 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.

¶27

¶28

The claimant filed a petition under Section

¶29

166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that she 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.

¶30

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 of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶31

¶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, one witness as PW-2 and Dr.Nagaraj.B.N. was examined as PW-3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. 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.365,300/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the

¶35

¶36

Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶37

The learned counsel for the claimant has

¶38

raised the following contentions:

¶39

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

¶40

Secondly, PW-3, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 37% to lower limb and 12% to whole body. But the Tribunal has erred in taking the whole body disability at only 7%.

¶41

Thirdly, 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, she was not in a position to

¶42

¶43

discharge her regular work. She 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.

¶44

On the other hand, the learned counsel for

¶45

the Insurance Company has raised following counter contentions:

¶46

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

¶47

Secondly, PW-3 the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 37% to lower limb and 12% to whole body. PW-3 is not a treated doctor. The Tribunal considering the

¶48

¶49

injuries sustained by the claimant, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 7%.

¶50

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 compensation.

¶51

Fourthly, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. is on the higher side. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶52

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

¶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. She has not produced any

¶55

¶56

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

¶57

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained Bimallcoler fracture with dislocation right leg. PW-3, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 37% to lower limb and 12% to whole body. PW-3 is not a treated doctor. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor, PW-3 and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate and discharge summary, the Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at 12%. The claimant is aged about 28 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to her age group is ‘17’. Thus, the claimant is

¶58

¶59

entitled for compensation of Rs.342,720/-

¶60

(Rs.14,0001217*12%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶61

The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 2 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.28,000/- (Rs.14,000*2 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶62

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 enhance the compensation awarded under the head of ‘conveyance, nourishment and attendance charges’ from Rs.1,200/- to Rs.8,000/-.

¶63

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. She has suffered lot of pain during treatment and she has to suffer with the disability stated by the doctor

¶64

¶65

throughout her life. Considering the same, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/-.

¶66

Considering the nature of injuries, the

¶67

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶68

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

¶69

following compensation:

¶70

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	25,000	25,000
Medical expenses	186,860	186,860
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	1,200	8,000
Loss of income during	8,000	28,000
laid up period
Loss of amenities	10,000	25,000
Loss of future income	114,240	342,720
Future medical expenses	20,000	20,000
Total	365,300	635,580

¶71

¶72

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

¶73

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.635,580/-.

¶74

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

¶75

Sd/JUDGE

¶76

Smt Nagarathna H v. Sri Prakash a S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nagarathna H v. Sri Prakash a S

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

Sri Hanumanthanaika Vs Sri Shankara

Deepa Vs Bharamappa

Subramanya. T Vs R. Dhananjaya

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mahabala Poojary

Smt Shaha Taj Vs Sri Mahadeva

Murthy @ M S Murthy Vs Avinash H a