Partly allowed

Sri Punith Kumar D M v. Sri Chandre Gowda K S

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2022MFA/3596/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Motor Vehicles Act appeal challenging a Claims Tribunal award on compensation. The High Court found the Tribunal under-estimated income and disability. Compensation for loss of future income and loss of income during laid-up period was enhanced, partially allowing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.746,400. Insurance Company directed to deposit amount with interest. Impugned judgment modified.

Sri Punith Kumar D M Vs Sri Chandre Gowda K S — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.3596 OF 2021(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI PUNITH KUMAR D M S/O MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT DEVANURU VILLAGE DODDA KAVALANDE HOBLI NANJANAGUD TALUK MYSORE-571 312.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.TEJAS N., ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . SRI CHANDRE GOWDA K S S/O SHIVANNA K C AGE MAJOR

¶13

R/AT 51, KODANAKUPPE VILLAGE LAKKAVAJANAHALLI POST KAOLANCH HOBLI RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 511.

¶14

2 . THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD., OFFICE 6^TH FLOOR KRUSHI BHAVAN

¶15

¶16

NRUPATUNDA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.P.B. RAJU, ADV. FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.04.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 4323/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-5), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS MFA 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 and decree dated 7.4.2021 passed by MACT, Bengaluru in MVC 4323/2019.

¶23

¶24

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

¶25

briefly stated are that on 26.6.2019 when the claimant was standing beside of BM Road opposite to KSRTC Depot, Ramanagara Town, at that time, two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-41-K-8187 being ridden by its rider 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

¶26

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

¶29

4. On service of notice, the respondents

¶30

appeared through counsel and filed written statements

¶31

in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

¶32

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶33

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.P11. 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 riding of the offending vehicle by its rider, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.548,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9%

¶34

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was a cook and earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.11,000/- per month.

¶38

Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 45% to lower limb and 15% to whole body. But the Tribunal has erred in taking the whole body disability at only 11%.

¶39

Thirdly, 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, he was not in a position to

¶40

¶41

discharge his regular work. He 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.

¶42

On the other hand, the learned counsel for

¶43

the Insurance Company has raised following counter contentions:

¶44

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.

¶45

Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 45% to lower limb and 15% to whole body. The Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the

¶46

¶47

claimant, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 11%.

¶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 compensation.

¶49

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

¶50

Heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶51

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

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He has not produced any

¶54

¶55

documents to prove his 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.

¶56

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained fracture of both bones of left leg and fracture of mandible. PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 45% to lower limb and 15% to whole body. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor, PW-2 and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the whole body disability can be taken at 15%. The claimant is aged about 28 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘17’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.428,400/-

¶57

¶58

(Rs.14,0001217*15%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶59

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’.

¶60

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

¶61

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

¶62

following compensation:

¶63

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	75,000	75,000
Medical expenses	150,000	150,000
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	20,000	20,000
Loss of income during laid up period	11,000	28,000

¶64

¶65

Loss of amenities	25,000	25,000
Loss of future income	247,000	428,400
Future medical expenses	20,000	20,000
Total	548,000	746,400

¶66

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

¶67

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation

¶68

of Rs.746,000/-.

¶69

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

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

Sri Punith Kumar D M v. Sri Chandre Gowda K S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Punith Kumar D M v. Sri Chandre Gowda K 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

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mahabala Poojary

Smt Shaha Taj Vs Sri Mahadeva

Murthy @ M S Murthy Vs Avinash H a

Sri Sanjeeva Poojary Vs Sri Vijaya Kharvi

Sri Pradeesh Kumar Shetty Vs Sri K R Venkatesh Bhat

Smt. Kempamma Vs Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation