Partly allowed

Pradeep. B. v. Vs Ashwathappa

Karnataka HC18 Oct 2022MFA/5337/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge enhanced the compensation awarded to a motor accident victim amidst a dispute over notional income assessment and quantum of damages for injuries, affirming part of the tribunal's order. However, the tribunal's subject summary contains an unrelated entry that should be excluded.

What did the court decide?

The total compensation is enhanced to Rs.5,31,866/-, including increased amounts for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, and loss of future income. Interest at 6% p.a. is directed.

Pradeep. B. v. Vs Ashwathappa — 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.5337 OF 2021(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PRADEEP. B. V. S/O VENKATACHALAIAH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT BUKKAPATTANA SIRA TALUK-572137.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.SHANTHARAJ K., ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . ASHWATHAPPA S/O CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT SINGANAHALLY VILLAGE KODIGEHALLY HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK 572132.

¶13

2 . IFFO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD BY ITS MANAGER ANNAPOORNA COMPLEX ABOVE RAGHU SCANNING CENTER CSI LAYOUT,BEHIND GAYATHRI TALKIES TUMAKURU CITY 572101.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. S.KRISHNA KISHORE, ADV. FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DATED: 18.10.2022)

¶16

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.1314/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, 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 dated 17.01.2020 passed by the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tumakuru in MVC No.1314/2018.

¶22

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 19.12.2017 at about 02.45 p.m., the claimant being a rider along with another as

¶23

a pillion rider was proceeding on a motorcycle beraing Registration No.KA-04-ES-681 at Bellara-Salukatte road, on the left side of the road in a moderate speed,

¶24

¶25

at that time, the rider of the Hero Honda splendor motor bike bearing Registration No.KA-06-Y-2779, rode the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed while coming from opposite side, dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was 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 riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.

¶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. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false

¶28

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶32

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-3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P27. On behalf of the respondents, two witnesses were examined as RW-1 and RW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place

¶33

¶34

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.4,00,000/- 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

6. The learned counsel for the claimant has

¶36

raised the following contentions:

¶37

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was working as a driver and earning Rs.25,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.9,000/- per month.

¶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

¶39

¶40

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.

¶41

Thirdly, due to the accident, he has undergone surgery. PW-2, doctor has suggested for removal of implants and it requires Rs.40,000/- for future medical expenses. But the Tribunal has granted only Rs.20,000/- towards ‘future medical expenses’ which is on lower side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶42

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

¶43

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, except producing driving license, he has not produced any document to

¶44

¶45

establish his income. In the absence of any supporting document, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.

¶46

Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. 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.

¶47

Thirdly, even though the doctor has suggested that he required Rs.40,000/-for removal of implants, the Tribunal after considering the evidence of the claimant has rightly awarded Rs.20,000/- towards ‘future medical expenses’. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶48

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶49

¶50

9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has

¶51

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

¶52

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month as a driver and he has produced driving license. The Tribunal has given a clear fining that the claimant was driver at the time of the accident. Considering the evidence of PW-1 and considering his age and avocation, the monthly income of the claimant has to be assessed as Rs.12,000/-.

¶53

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained fracture of distal end of radius. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered physical disability of 36% to particular limb and 12% to whole body. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the Wound Certificate, the Tribunal has

¶54

¶55

rightly taken the whole body disability at 12%. The claimant is aged about 23 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.3,11,040/- (Rs.12,0001218*12%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶56

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.36,000/- (Rs.12,000*3 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶57

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

¶58

¶59

Rs.25,000/- to Rs.45,000/- and under the head of

¶60

'pain and sufferings' from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.

¶61

In respect of ‘future medical expenses’ is concerned, the Tribunal after considering the material available on record, has rightly granted Rs.20,000/towards ‘future medical expenses’.

¶62

Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other

¶63

heads is just and reasonable.

¶64

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

¶65

following compensation:

¶66

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	30,000	50,000
Medical expenses	39,826	39,826
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	30,000	30,000
Loss of income during laid up period	20,000	36,000
Loss of amenities	25,000	45,000
Loss of future income	233,280	311,040

¶67

¶68

Future medical expenses 20,000	20,000
Total 3,98,106	5,31,866
*The Tribunal has rounded of the award
amountfrom Rs.3,98,106/-toRs.4,00,000/-

¶69

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

¶70

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,31,866/- as against Rs.4,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶71

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.

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

HA/-

Pradeep. B. v. Vs Ashwathappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep. B. v. Vs Ashwathappa

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

N T Ranganatha Vs Gopalakrishna

Branch Manager Vs Smt G B Yashodamma