Partly allowed

Shashidhara S S v. Prabhu H v

Karnataka HC17 Oct 2022MFA/5230/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, enhancing compensation awarded for a motor vehicle accident. The Court modified the Tribunal's order, increasing compensation for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, and loss of future income while maintaining other heads against the insurer.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced total compensation from Rs.1,82,998 to Rs.2,66,878; directed deposit by insurer with 6% interest within six weeks.

Shashidhara S S Vs Prabhu H v — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.5230 OF 2019(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Shashidhara S.S., S/o Late Shankarappa, Aged about 36 years, R/at Suranayakanahalli Village, Halebeedu Hobli, Belur Taluk-573115, Presently R/at House No.7, 2^nd Stage Jayanagar, Hassan. … Appellant

¶9

(By Sri.Jagadeesh H.T., Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Prabhu H.V., S/o H.G. Vishweswaraiah, R/at Extension Officer,

¶12

Canara Bank, Madikeri main Branch, Madekeri, Kodagu District-571201.

¶13

The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Cresent Court, 1^st Floor, KM Road,

¶14

Chikkmagalur. ... Respondents

¶15

(By Sri.O.Mahesh, Advocate for R2; Notice to R1 D/W V/o dated: 31.03.2022)

¶16

¶17

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated:23.02.2019 passed in MVC No.319/2018 on the file of the II Additional District and sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Hassan, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶18

This MFA, coming on for Admission , this day, this Court, delivered the following:

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

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 23.02.2019 passed by the II Additional District & Sessions Court & Additional MACT at Hassan in MVC No.319/2018.

¶21

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly

¶22

stated are that on 21.05.2017 at about 5.30 p.m. the claimant was crossing the road near Rayapura cross on Belur – Hassan road. At that time, a Swift car bearing registration No.KA-12/P-4011 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed

¶23

¶24

against the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was

¶25

hospitalized.

¶26

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.

¶27

On service of notice, the respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. The

¶28

age, avocation and income of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself

¶29

is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the accident was due to the negligence of the claimant himself. It was further pleaded that the driver of

¶30

¶31

the offending vehicle did not have valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. It was further pleaded that the liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

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

¶33

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

¶34

Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and Dr.H.S.Ravi was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. On behalf of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor got exhibited documents. 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

¶35

¶36

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.1,83,000/along with interest @ 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶37

Sri H.T.Jagadeesh, the learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions:

¶38

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was doing agriculture and animal husbandry work and earning Rs.50,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as only Rs.9,000/- per month.

¶39

Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of three 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 and he has to suffer the disability and unhappiness throughout his

¶40

¶41

life. Considering the same, the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the heads of 'pain and sufferings', and other incidental heads are on the lower side and the Tribunal has failed to award any compensation for 'loss of amenities'. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶42

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

¶43

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.50,000/- per month, he has not produced any documents to establish his income. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.

¶44

Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. He was in the hospital for only three days. 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

¶45

¶46

reasonable compensation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶47

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶48

perused the judgment and award and the original records.

¶49

It is not in dispute that the claimant has

¶50

sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred due

¶51

to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶52

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.50,000/per month. 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 2017, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m. Due to the accident, the claimant has sustained fracture of left tibia and fibula. Considering the evidence of the doctor the Tribunal has

¶53

¶54

rightly assessed the whole body disability as 7%. The claimant was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘16’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,47,840/- (Rs.11,0001216* 7%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶55

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for more than three days in the hospital and thereafter, has received further treatment. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to suffer with the disability and unhappiness 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.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/-, 'loss of income during laid-up period' for a period of two months, i.e., Rs.22,000/- and 'loss of amenities' at Rs.30,000/-.

¶56

¶57

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

¶58

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:

¶59

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	22,548	22,548
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	4,490	4,490
Loss of income during laid up period	5,000	22,000
Loss of amenities	0	30,000
Loss of future income	1,20,960	1,47,840
Total	1,82,998	2,66,878

¶60

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

¶61

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,66,878/- as against Rs.1,82,998/- awarded by the

¶62

Tribunal.

¶63

¶64

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

¶65

compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from

¶66

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

Cm/-

Shashidhara S S v. Prabhu H v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashidhara S S v. Prabhu H v

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. K.Nagendar @ Dinna Vs Sri. K.Girish

Siddamma Vs Keshava Murthy

Revanna Vs Keshava Murthy M C

Krishnappa B Vs M/S Royal Sundaram

Sri. Srinivasa R Vs M/S Technocast Foundary

Kaleemulla Vs the Head Master