Partly allowed

R Venugopala Krishna v. Manjunatha T C

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2022MFA/3079/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the Motor Vehicles Appeal partly and enhanced the compensation from Rs.2,10,700 to Rs.2,67,400. The court increased awards specifically for loss of income, amenities, and pain and sufferings while maintaining the interest rate at 8% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Compensation increased to Rs.2,67,400/- to be deposited by the insurance company with interest at 8% p.a.

R Venugopala Krishna Vs Manjunatha T C — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

MFA No. 3079 OF 2020(MV)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

R VENUGOPALA KRISHNA S/O RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS CHIKKAMARALI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI 571434 PANDAVAPURA TALUK. ...APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI.SRINIVAS V., ADV.)

¶9

AND

¶10

1 . MANJUNATHA T C S/O CHIKKAIAH MAJOR,R/O NO 156 TALASHASANA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK 571434.

¶11

2 . MANAGER

¶12

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMP LTD, NO 2951, 2ND FLOOR JLB ROAD, CHAMUNDI PURAM MYSORE, KARNATAKA 570004. …RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI. SREENIVASAN M.Y., ADV. FOR R1: SMT. LATHA PRASAD, ADV. FOR R2)

¶14

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED.31.05.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.717/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶16

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

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor

¶19

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.5.2019 passed by Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Pandavapura in MVC 717/2017.

¶20

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 6.11.2016 when the claimant was proceeding by walk to his native at Chikkamarali from Pandavapura-Mandya Main Road, at that time, motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-

¶21

¶22

11-EG-5020 being driven by its driver at a high speed

¶23

and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was

¶24

hospitalized.

¶25

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.

¶26

On service of notice, the respondents appeared through counsel and filed written statements in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

¶27

¶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 examined as PW-1 and Dr.Karunakara.S was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P28. 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.210,700/- 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.

¶30

¶31

6. The learned counsel for the claimant has

¶32

raised the following contentions:

¶33

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was doing agricultural work and quarrying business work and earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.9,000/- per month.

¶34

Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-2. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 22.9% to particular limb. But the Tribunal has taken the whole body disability at 8%, which is on the lower side.

¶35

Thirdly, 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

¶36

¶37

during treatment. Considering the same, the

¶38

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.

¶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.10,000/- 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 22.9% to particular limb. The Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 8%.

¶43

¶44

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.

¶45

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 9% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher side. Hence, she sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶46

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

¶47

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred

¶48

¶49

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

¶50

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.10,000/- 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 2016, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.9,500/- p.m.

¶51

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained swelling on the right leg ankle and knee. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 22.9% to particular limb. 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 8%. The claimant is aged

¶52

¶53

about 36 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.136,800/(Rs.9,5001215*8%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶54

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.28,500/- (Rs.9,500*3 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶55

The claimant was treated as inpatient for more than 5 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

¶56

¶57

awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.

¶58

Considering the nature of injuries, the

¶59

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

¶60

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

¶61

following compensation:

¶62

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	30,000	50,000
Medical expenses	2,100	2,100
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	10,000	10,000
Loss of income during	9,000	28,500
laid up period
Loss of amenities	30,000	40,000
Loss of future income	129,600	136,800
Total	210,700	267,400

¶63

¶64

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

¶65

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.267,400/-.

¶66

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 .

¶67

In view of the order dated 13.10.2022 passed by this Court, the claimant is not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 153 days in filing the appeal.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

R Venugopala Krishna v. Manjunatha T C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Venugopala Krishna v. Manjunatha T C

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

Ramesha Vs Premakka

Rathnamma Vs Premakka

Mr. Ramesh Vs Mr. Irshad Ahamed

Sri C P Nagaraj Vs Sri Chandrashekar S T

Noorjan Vs Mohammed Rafiq Gangolli

Smt Rajeshwari Bayi @ Rajeshwari Vs Sathyanarayana B.N.