Partly allowed

Smt Pavithra M v. Mahesh C

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2022MFA/2741/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous first appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to an Anganawadi teacher injured in a road accident. The Court considered the disparity between claimed and notional income, medical evidence, and nature of injuries to increase awards for pain, amenities, and future income.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced total compensation to Rs. 376,994; directed Insurance Company to deposit amount with 6% p.a. interest within six weeks.

Smt Pavithra M Vs Mahesh C — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 2741 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2741 OF 2022(MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT PAVITHRA M W/O MAHADEVA AGED 28 YEARS R/AT NO 685, KURABAGERI KALALE NANJANAGUD TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT 571138.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. VEERABHADRA SWAMY H P., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MAHESH C S/O CHANDRSHETTY R/AT NO 11, HARALIKATI VILLAGE AND POST,BEGURU HOBLI GUNDLUPET TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST 572111.

¶13

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD MAHARAJA COMPLEX OPP SUB URBAN BUS STAND B N ROAD, MYSURU-570001

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DATED: 06.12.2022)

¶17

¶18

MFA No. 2741 of 2022

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 04.10.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1015/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, NANJANGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

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 4.10.2021 passed by MACT, Nanjangud in MVC No.1015/2018.

¶23

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

¶24

briefly stated are that on 21.8.2017 when the claimant was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-10-S-8038 as a pillion rider and reached Kalale Gate, at that time, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-09C-27 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.

¶25

¶26

MFA No. 2741 of 2022

¶27

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166

¶28

of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that she spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance charges, 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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant herself was examined as PW-1 and Dr.Puttaswamy was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1

¶32

¶33

MFA No. 2741 of 2022

¶34

and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. 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.239,490/- 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, the present appeal has been filed.

¶35

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

¶36

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that she was working as teacher and cook at Anganavadi Kendra and earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.3,000/- p.m.

¶37

Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-2. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the

¶38

¶39

MFA No. 2741 of 2022

¶40

claimant has suffered disability of 6.8% to whole body. Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 8 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, she was not in a position to discharge her regular work. She 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. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶41

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised following counter contentions:

¶42

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that she was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, he has not produced any documents to establish his income. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.

¶43

¶44

MFA No. 2741 of 2022

¶45

Secondly, the Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and evidence of the doctor, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 6.8%.

¶46

Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are just and reasonable and it does not call for interference. 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 sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 21.8.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶49

The claimant in her evidence has stated that she was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as an Anganawadi teacher.

¶50

¶51

MFA No. 2741 of 2022

¶52

She has not produced any documents to prove her income. Therefore, in the absence of proof of income, notional income has to be assessed. Even as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2017, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m. But however, considering the evidence of claimant, the income is taken at Rs.10,000/- p.m.

¶53

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained fracture of left arm, burn injuries to buttock and other parts of the body. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 6.8% 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 6.8%. The claimant is aged about 26 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘17’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for

¶54

¶55

MFA No. 2741 of 2022

¶56

compensation of Rs.138,720/- (Rs.10,0001217*6.8%) 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 2 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.10,000*2 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶58

The claimant was treated as inpatient for more than 8 days in the hospital and thereafter, has received further treatment. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. Shee has suffered lot of pain during treatment and she has to suffer with the disability stated by the doctor throughout her life. Considering the same, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.25,000/-.

¶59

¶60

MFA No. 2741 of 2022

¶61

Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation

¶62

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

¶63

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following

¶64

compensation:

¶65

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	40,000	50,000
Medical expenses	105,074	105,074
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	8,200	8,200
Loss of income during laid up period	9,600	20,000
Loss of amenities	5,000	25,000
Loss of future income	41,616	138,720
Future medical expenses	30,000	30,000
Total	239,490	376,994

¶66

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part .

¶67

The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶68

10 -

¶69

MFA No. 2741 of 2022

¶70

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of

¶71

Rs.376,994/-.

¶72

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

¶73

Sd/JUDGE

¶74

DM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25

Smt Pavithra M v. Mahesh C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pavithra M v. Mahesh C

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

Smt Sharadamma Vs Sri G Anand

Smt Radha Vs Sri G Anand

Smt Meenakshi Vs the Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Nanjundaiah Vs Yogesh K M

Sri Nagaraju Vs S Sundarraj

Rangaswamy Vs N Ramachandra