Partly allowed

Mr Prabhu Shankar @ Prabhu Sharkar v. the Regional Manager

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2022MFA/3373/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a First Appeal challenging a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal judgment on compensation for a road accident. The High Court enhanced the awarded compensation by reassessing income, disability percentage, and raising amounts for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the total award to Rs 6,64,460.

What did the court decide?

The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal was modified to a total of Rs 6,64,460 along with interest at 6% p.a.

Mr Prabhu Shankar @ Prabhu Sharkar Vs the Regional… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 3373 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3373 OF 2012(MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR PRABHU SHANKAR @ PRABHU SHARKAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O T M KRISHNAN R/AT NO. 3, KARAMACHAND LAYOUT II MAIN ROAD, LINGARAJAPURAM BANGALORE-84.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SMT.AMBIKA M., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by C MALATHI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE REGIONAL MANAGER THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD SUBHARAM COMPLEX 2ND FLOOR, 22/1 M G ROAD, BANGALORE- 01.

¶14

MR E PRASAD RATNAM D.NO. 215- 43 21ST WARD, BRUNDAVANAM KUNDUKUR DISTRICT PRAKASAM, ANDHRA PRADESH- 523105.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY.,ADVOCATE FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 04.04.2014)

¶17

¶18

MFA No. 3373 of 2012

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:2.7.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.1300/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE 13TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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 02.07.2011 passed by MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.1300/2009.

¶23

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 24.01.2009 at about 03.00 a.m., the claimant was traveling in a Indica Car bearing Registration No.KA-01-Z-336 on NH-4 road near Basavanatha gate Kolar Bye pass road, Kolar town, at that time, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.AP27-X-5659 drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. As a result of the

¶24

¶25

MFA No. 3373 of 2012

¶26

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.1 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.

¶29

¶30

MFA No. 3373 of 2012

¶31

The respondent No.2 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-

¶32

parte.

¶33

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.Alwin was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P29. 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.3,56,660/along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount

¶34

¶35

MFA No. 3373 of 2012

¶36

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, the claimant is Income Tax Assessee and he has produced IT Returns for the period of 2003-04, 200405, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. The Tribunal has not considered the same and has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.8,000/- 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 whole body disability at 20%. But the Tribunal has not assessed any disability and has not granted any compensation under the head of ‘loss of future income due to disability’.

¶40

Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for

¶41

¶42

MFA No. 3373 of 2012

¶43

a period of 17 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. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶44

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

¶45

Firstly, the Tribunal considering the documents produced by the claimant and considering the injuries suffered by the claimant has rightly considered the notional income of the claimant as Rs.8,000/- per month.

¶46

Secondly, even though the doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered whole body disability at 20%, the Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and evidence of the doctor, has rightly held

¶47

¶48

MFA No. 3373 of 2012

¶49

that the claimant has not suffered any loss due to disability. Therefore the Tribunal has rightly not granted any compensation under the head of ‘loss of future income due to disability’.

¶50

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 is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶51

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

¶52

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.

¶53

¶54

MFA No. 3373 of 2012

¶55

The claimant has produced IT Returns as per Ex.P18 to Ex.P21. Considering the same, I am of the opinion that the monthly income of the claimant can be assessed at Rs.12,000/-.

¶56

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained fracture shaft right femur, inter trochanteric fracture of left femur, fracture of right acetabulum and fracture of left distal radius. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered whole disability of 20%. 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 15%. The claimant is aged about 46 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘13’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,80,800/- (Rs.12,0001213*15%) on account of 'loss of future income' as against the

¶57

¶58

MFA No. 3373 of 2012

¶59

compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of ‘disability’.

¶60

The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 03 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.36,000/- (Rs.12,000*03 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶61

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He was treated as inpatient for more than 17 days in the hospital. 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 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/and under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.20,000/to Rs.50,000/-.

¶62

10 -

¶63

MFA No. 3373 of 2012

¶64

Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation

¶65

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

¶66

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following

¶67

compensation:

¶68

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	50,000	60,000
Medical expenses	2,17,660	2,17,660
Loss of income during laid up period	24,000	36,000
Loss of amenities	20,000	50,000
Loss of future income due to disability	25,000	2,80,800
Future medical expenses	20,000	20,000
Total	3,56,660	6,64,460

¶69

11 -

¶70

MFA No. 3373 of 2012

¶71

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

¶72

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,64,460/-.

¶73

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 excluding interest for the compensation awarded under the head of 'future medical expenses'.

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

¶76

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 38

Mr Prabhu Shankar @ Prabhu Sharkar v. the Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Prabhu Shankar @ Prabhu Sharkar v. the Regional Manager

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 Nagarajappa Vs Sri. Nagendra N

Mr K Praveen S/O Krishnappa Vs Mr Nagappa S/O Channappa

Sri Chandrappa Vs Universal Sompoo General

Sri. Siddharatha Vs Sri. Narayanappa

Anwar Pasha Vs the Manager

Smt Tanuja Vs Sri Nandeesh C G