Partly allowed

N T Ranganatha v. Gopalakrishna

Karnataka HC18 Oct 2022MFA/5336/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident compensation appeal, the court examined the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Considering the grievous injuries, surgeries, and disability, the High Court enhanced the compensation under heads of pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, and loss of future income, allowing the appeal partially.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed in part; total compensation enhanced to Rs.4,96,428/- with 6% p.a. interest payable by the Insurance Company.

N T Ranganatha Vs Gopalakrishna — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.5336 OF 2021(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

N T RANGANATHA S/O LATE THIPPURAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NULENUR VILLAGE DABBAGUNTE POST, HULIUR HOBLI, C.N.HALLI TALUK, NOW RESIDIG AT SIRA GATE, TUMKURU 572106.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.SHANTHARAJ K., ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . GOPALAKRISHNA S/O HONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT PNR PALYA, SIRA GATE TUMAKURU TOWN 572106.

¶13

2 . NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. BY ITS MANAGER KASTURI MANSION M.G.ROAD, BEHIND KRISHNA TALKIES

TUMAKURU 572101.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K.N. SRINIVASA, ADV. FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 18.10.2022)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED.14.09.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.1058/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor

¶22

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.09.2020 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTSC-I), C/c VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tumakuru in MVC No.1058/2019.

¶23

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

¶24

briefly stated are that on 24.07.2019 at about 11.30

¶25

¶26

p.m., when the claimant was proceeding in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-06-ER-3722 as a pillion rider, at that time, the rider of the said motorcycle rode the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, without ascertaining the road humps, moved the same and he lost control over the vehicle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was

¶27

hospitalized.

¶28

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 riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.

¶29

¶30

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. 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.

¶31

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

¶32

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and Dr. Prasad M. Gowda was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. On behalf of the

¶33

¶34

respondents, neither 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.3,25,000/- 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, the present appeal has been filed.

¶35

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

¶36

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was doing agriculture work and earning Rs.2,00,000/per annum, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.9,000/- per month.

¶37

¶38

Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 3 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.

¶39

On the other hand, the learned counsel for

¶40

the Insurance Company has raised following counter contentions:

¶41

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum, he has not produced any documents to establish his income. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.

¶42

¶43

Secondly, the doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered physical disability of 30% to upper limb and 10% to whole body. The whole body disability assessed by the Tribunal 10% is on higher side.

¶44

Thirdly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. He was inpatient in the hospital only for a period of 3 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 reasonable and it does not call for interference. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶46

and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶47

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred

¶48

¶49

due to rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.

¶50

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. 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 2019, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.14,000/- p.m.

¶51

As per Wound Certificate, the claimant has sustained communited fracture of left clavicle. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered physical disability of 30% to upper limb and 10% to whole body. 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 10%. The

¶52

¶53

claimant is aged about 40 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘15’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,52,000/- (Rs.14,0001215*10%) 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 03 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.42,000/- (Rs.14,000*03 months) 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 3 days in the 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

¶56

¶57

Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.60,000/-.

¶58

Considering the nature of injuries, the

¶59

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

¶60

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

¶61

following compensation:

¶62

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	30,000	60,000
Medical expenses	47,428	47,428
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	25,000	25,000
Loss of income during laid up period	10,000	42,000
Loss of amenities	30,000	50,000
Loss of future income	1,62,000	2,52,000
Future medical expenses	20,000	20,000
Total	3,24,428	4,96,428
*The Tribunal has rounded of t amount from Rs.3,24,428/-to	he award Rs.3,25,000/-

¶63

¶64

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

¶65

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,96,428/- as against Rs.3,25,000/- 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/-

N T Ranganatha v. Gopalakrishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N T Ranganatha v. Gopalakrishna

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

Kumara Vs Mahesh B R

Shashidhara S S Vs Prabhu H v

Meena Vs the Managing Director

Smt. Danamma Vs the Manager

Pradeep. B. v. Vs Ashwathappa

Branch Manager Vs Smt G B Yashodamma