Partly allowed

Srinivas v. Vs Mr Mahesh T

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2022MFA/416/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a modification appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court enhanced the total compensation from Rs.3,24,600 to Rs.4,97,400 by revising the notional income multiplier and permanent disablement percentage, while directing the insurers to pay at 9% interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.3,24,600 to Rs.4,97,400. Direction to pay interest at 9% p.a. and deposit the amount within six weeks.

Srinivas v Vs Mr Mahesh T — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.416 OF 2020(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRINIVAS V

¶9

S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS NO.E-34, GERUPAYA VILLAGE KUMBULGODU POST KENGERI HOBI

¶10

BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. PUTTA SWAMY C., ADV.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

1 . MR MAHESH T

¶15

S/O THIPPARAYAPPAGOWDA NO.15, PADARAHALLI VILLAGE HARISANDRA POST KASABA HOBLI RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶16

2 . UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD REGIONAL OFFICE NO.18, KRUSHI BHAVAN 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR HUDSON CIRCLE

¶17

N T ROAD

¶18

¶19

BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. MANJULA N. TEJASWI, ADV. FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 21.07.2022)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 5141/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (SCCH-16), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

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 28.08.2019 passed by the X Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru in MVC No.5141/2018.

¶26

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

¶27

briefly stated are that on 25.08.2018 at 06.00 p.m.,

¶28

¶29

the claimant was going to his Village from Kumbalagodu by riding the scooter bearing Registration No.KA-42-U-2061. At that time, the driver of the Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA42-A-2949 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner came to the extreme left side and hit the scooter from behind. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶30

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.

¶31

¶32

On service of notice, the respondent No.2

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶36

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.P12. On behalf of the respondents, neither

¶37

¶38

examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 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.3,24,600/- 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.

¶39

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

¶40

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was running a petty shop and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.10,000/- per month.

¶41

¶42

Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-2. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has physical suffered disability to right arm at 45% and 15% to whole body. But the Tribunal has taken the whole body disability at 8%, which is on the lower side. He further deposed that the claimant has to undergo another surgery which will cost Rs.40,000/-. But the Tribunal has granted only Rs.15,000/- towards ‘future medical expenses’ is on lower side.

¶43

Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 4 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

¶44

¶45

other incidental expenses are on the lower side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶46

On the other hand, the learned counsel for

¶47

the Insurance Company has raised following counter contentions:

¶48

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, he has not produced any documents to establish his income. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.

¶49

Secondly, the doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has physical suffered disability to right arm at 45% and 15% to whole body. The Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 8%.

¶50

Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the

¶51

¶52

claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference.

¶53

Fourthly, even though doctor has deposed that he required Rs.40,000/- for removal implants, he has not produced estimation of the cost. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly granted Rs.15,000/- for ‘future medical expenses’.

¶54

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

¶55

Heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶56

and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶57

¶58

9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has

¶59

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

¶60

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.15,000/- 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 2018, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.12,500/- p.m.

¶61

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained fracture to weight bearing bones. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has physical suffered disability to right arm at 45% and 15% to whole body. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and injuries

¶62

¶63

mentioned in the wound certificate, I am of the opinion that the whole body disability can be assessed at 12%. The claimant is aged about 30 years at the

¶64

time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘17’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,06,000/(Rs.12,5001217*12%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶65

The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 02 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.12,500*02 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶66

The claimant was treated as inpatient for more than 4 days in the hospital and thereafter, has received further treatment. Hence, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded under the head of

¶67

¶68

‘conveyance, nourishment and attendance charges’ from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-.

¶69

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 awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.35,000/- and under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.

¶70

In respect of future medical expenses is concerned, even though doctor has deposed that he required Rs.40,000/- for removal implants, he has not produced any estimation of the cost for removal of implants. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly granted Rs.15,000/- under the head of ‘future medical expenses’.

¶71

¶72

Considering the nature of injuries, the

¶73

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

¶74

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

¶75

following compensation:

¶76

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	30,000	40,000
Medical expenses	66,342	66,342
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	5,000	10,000
Loss of income during laid up period	20,000	25,000
Loss of amenities	25,000	35,000
Loss of future income	1,63,200	306,000
Future medical expenses	15,000	15,000
Total	3,24,542	4,97,342
Rounded of	3,24,600	4,97,400

¶77

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

¶78

¶79

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,97,400/- as against Rs.3,24,600/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶80

In view of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘MS.JOYEETA BOSE’, the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum.

¶81

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 9% p.a. (the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum) 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'.

¶82

Sd/JUDGE

¶83

HA/-

Srinivas v. Vs Mr Mahesh T

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinivas v. Vs Mr Mahesh T

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H.Vanajakshi Vs M.B.Manjunatha

Suresh Dhanashetti Vs M/S Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd

Mr Vinod K Vs Mr Kumar C M

Master Mohammed Thameem Vs Mr. Sachin S Suvarna

Mr.Savitram Vs Mr.Ravishankar

Smt Eramma Vs the Regional Manager