Partly allowed

Rangaswamy v. N Ramachandra

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2022MFA/4418/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Motor Vehicle Accident claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal by revising notional income assessment, disability percentage application, and specific heads including pain and suffering, while modifying the interest rate to 6% p.a. pursuant to a Division Bench judgment.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs. 433,533; interest on enhanced amount fixed at 6% p.a.

Rangaswamy Vs N Ramachandra — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 4418 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4418 OF 2019(MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RANGASWAMY S/O LATE DODDEMANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS MAHDHIHALLI VILLAGE SALAGAME HOBLI HASSAN TALUK 573-201

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SMT. SHARADAMBA A R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

N RAMACHANDRA S/O NARAYANAPPA MAJOR # 32/498, SARAKKI GARDEN 6TH PHASE J P NAGARA BENGALURU 560078.

¶13

Digitally signed BENGALURU 560078. by DHANALAKSHMI2. THE MANAGER MURTHY UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., Location: High NO.24, VITOS ROAD Court of Karnataka CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU 600014. R/BY THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., VENKATESHWARA COMPLEX B M ROAD, HASSAN 573-201.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

¶16

MFA No. 4418 of 2019

¶17

(BY SRI.M.U.POONACHA., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED:06.12.2022)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 29.11.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.1136/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles

¶22

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.11.2018 passed by MACT, Hassan in MVC No.1136/2016.

¶23

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 3.12.2015 when the claimant was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-

¶24

¶25

MFA No. 4418 of 2019

¶26

13-EE-9475 as a pillion rider on Hassan-Halebeedu road, Seegekere Kodi, at that time, motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-05-EH-3480 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 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 charges, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.

¶28

On service of notice, the respondents appeared

¶29

through counsel and only respondent No.2 filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

¶30

¶31

MFA No. 4418 of 2019

¶32

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

¶33

Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and Dr.Gangu Hiral was examined as PW-3 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.378,393/along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶34

The learned counsel for the claimant has raised

¶35

the following contentions:

¶36

¶37

MFA No. 4418 of 2019

¶38

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was doing agricultural work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.8,500/- p.m.

¶39

Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-3. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 40% to particular limb. But the Tribunal has taken the whole body disability at 13%, which is on the lower side.

¶40

Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 16 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.

¶41

¶42

MFA No. 4418 of 2019

¶43

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

¶44

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. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.

¶45

Secondly, the Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and evidence of the doctor, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 13%.

¶46

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 are just and reasonable and it does not call for interference.

¶47

¶48

MFA No. 4418 of 2019

¶49

Lastly, in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others –vVenkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 8% 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 and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶51

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 3.12.2015 due to rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.

¶52

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,

¶53

¶54

MFA No. 4418 of 2019

¶55

for the accident taken place in the year 2015, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.9,000/- p.m.

¶56

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained right tibia plateau fracture with a open wound, right tibia lower ¼ shaft displaced fracture and cut laceration wound right calf and puncture wound right leg upper. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 40% 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 13%. The claimant is aged about 49 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.182,520/- (Rs.90001213*13%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶57

The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 3

¶58

¶59

MFA No. 4418 of 2019

¶60

months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.27,000/- (Rs.9,000*3 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶61

The claimant was treated as inpatient for more than 16 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 awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.60,000/and under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.30,000/to Rs.45,000/-.

¶62

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

¶63

10 -

¶64

MFA No. 4418 of 2019

¶65

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following

¶66

compensation:

¶67

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	40,000	60,000
Medical expenses	94,013	94,013
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	25,000	25,000
Loss of income during laid up period	17,000	27,000
Loss of amenities	30,000	45,000
Loss of future income	172,380	182,520
Total	378,393	433,533

¶68

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part .

¶69

The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶70

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of

¶71

Rs.433,533/-.

¶72

11 -

¶73

MFA No. 4418 of 2019

¶74

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

¶75

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 .

¶76

Sd/JUDGE

¶77

¶78

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

Rangaswamy v. N Ramachandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangaswamy v. N Ramachandra

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

Smt Sharadamma Vs Sri G Anand

Smt Radha Vs Sri G Anand

Smt Meenakshi Vs the Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Nanjundaiah Vs Yogesh K M

Smt Pavithra M Vs Mahesh C

Sri Nagaraju Vs S Sundarraj