Partly allowed

Abdul Akram v. Haidar

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2022MFA/4149/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, modifying the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The court enhanced the compensation for loss of future income, loss of amenities, and pain and suffering, while retaining medical and conveyance expenses. The total award was increased to Rs. 4,69,072.

What did the court decide?

The Appeal is allowed in part; the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 4,69,072/- along with interest at 6% p.a. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within six weeks.

Abdul Akram Vs Haidar — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.4149 OF 2020 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ABDUL AKRAM S/O HAIDAR, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, RESIDENT AT DOOR NO.2-97-1, BATYADKA HOUSE, MANGALANTHI, MANJANADY POST & VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K.- 574 237.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.KRISHNAMOORTHY.D., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

HAIDAR S/O LATE ABDULLA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDENT AT DOOR NO. 2-97-1, BATYADKA HOUSE, MANGALANTHI, MANJANADY POST & VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K.- 574 237.

¶13

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., SALDANHA BUILDING, BRIGADE ROAD, BALMATTA, MANGALURU – 575 001. REP BY ITS MANAGER.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

¶16

(BY SMT.MANJULA.N. TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.02.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.1791/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MANGALURU, D.K., PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor

¶21

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2020 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Mangaluru in MVC No.1791/2018.

¶22

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

¶23

briefly stated are that on 30.06.2018 at about 08.15 P.M., the claimant was proceeding as a pillion rider in

¶24

the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-19/EX-

¶25

¶26

1635 from Kutthar towards Manjanady and the said motorcycle was ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without observing the rules and regulations of the traffic. When they reached at the place called Kinya, due to over speed, the rider lost control over the motorcycle and the same was fell capsized on the road. As a result of the same, 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

¶29

4. On service of notice, the respondent No.2

¶30

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. It was further pleaded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent riding of the vehicle by the rider himself. The rider of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. The liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. 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

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

¶32

¶33

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶34

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and Dr. Vinay P. G. was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined but exhibited a document namely Ex.R1. 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.2,88,422/- 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, this appeal has been filed.

¶35

¶36

6. Sri D. Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for

¶37

the claimant has raised the following contentions:

¶38

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he

¶39

was working as a painter and earning Rs.1,000/- per day, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.7,500/- per month.

¶40

Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 9 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 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.

¶41

¶42

On the other hand, Smt. Manjula N. Tejaswi, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised following counter contentions:

¶43

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.1,000/- per day, he has not produced any documents to establish his income. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.

¶44

Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. He was treated as inpatient only for a period of 9 days. He has examined the Dr.Vinay P.G. as PW-2. The doctor has assessed the disability at 40%. Considering the evidence of the doctor, 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. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶45

¶46

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶47

and perused the records.

¶48

It is not in dispute that the claimant has

¶49

sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.

¶50

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.1,000/- per day. He has not produced any 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 2018, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.12,500/- p.m.

¶51

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained two grievous injuries and three simple injuries. PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence

¶52

¶53

that the claimant has suffered disability of 40%. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor, PW-2 and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at 13%. The claimant is aged about 18 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘18’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,51,000/(Rs.12,5001218*13%) 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 01 month. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.12,500/- (Rs.12,500*1 month) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶55

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He was treated as inpatient for more than 9 days in the

¶56

¶57

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 'loss of amenities' from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/- and ‘pain and suffering’ from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/-.

¶58

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

¶59

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

¶60

following compensation:

¶61

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	10,000	25,000
Medical expenses	47,922	47,922
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	7,650	7,650
Loss of income during laid up period	2,250	12,500

¶62

¶63

Loss of amenities	10,000	25,000
Loss of future income	2,10,600	3,51,000
Total	2,88,422	4,69,072

¶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.4,69,072/- as against Rs.2,88,422/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶66

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the 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.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

HA/-

Abdul Akram v. Haidar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Akram v. Haidar

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 Chikkanna Vs Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd.

Smt Doddakka @ Doddathayamma Vs Sri. Krishnamurthy S B

Smt Mallamma Vs Sri Krishnamurthy S B

Smt Gangamma Vs Mr Suhail Khan

The Managing Director Vs Sri Vinay S P

Sri Vinay S P Vs the Managing Director