Partly allowed

Bhaskar Rao H R v. v Muniyappa

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2022MFA/8375/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court of Karnataka enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, correcting the calculation of future income and adjusting specific heads, while modifying the interest rate.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.2,60,603/- to Rs.5,54,103/- with interest at 6% p.a.

Bhaskar Rao H R Vs v Muniyappa — Money Laundering | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶6

M.F.A.NO.8375/2019 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BHASKAR RAO H.R. S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT WARD NO.19 RAMAKRISHNA WARD SRINIVASAPURA TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI KAILAS SHANKAR P.S, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

V.MUNIYAPPA

¶13

S/O VENKATAGIRIYAPPA MAJOR R/AT DODDABANDARLAHALLI VILLAGE KASHETTIPALLI POST SRINIVASAPURA TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT

¶14

THE MANAGER THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE NO.18, KRISHI BHAVAN 5^TH FLOOR, OPP:HUDSON CIRCLE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

¶17

(BY SRI. N. RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. Y.K.SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORD IN THE COURT OF THE SMALL CAUSES JUDGE BENGALURU IN MVC.NO.2045/2018 DATED 09.04.2019, PERUSE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED AND SET ASIDE, MODIFIED AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED IN THE CLAIM PETITION OR GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 22.02.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, J.M.KHAZI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

This is claimant’s appeal filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’) seeking enhancement of compensation granted for the injury sustained by the appellant/petitioner in the road traffic accident dated 28.01.2018.

¶22

For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.

¶23

It is the case of the petitioner that on

¶24

28.01.2018, at about 8.00 p.m. petitioner was riding motor

¶25

¶26

cycle bearing registration No.KA 07/Q 1659 from Rayalapadu towards Srinivasapura. When he was near Neelaturu Cross, Srinivasapura Taluk of Kolar District, TATA Sumo bearing registration No.KA-07/M 4323 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) came from the opposite side in a high speed, in a rash or negligent manner from wrong side of the road and dashed against the motor cycle of the petitioner.

¶27

In the accident, petitioner sustained grievous injuries and suffered permanent partial disability. He was in-patient from 29.01.2018 to 14.03.2018 and claimed total compensation in a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-.

¶28

As the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and hence, the appeal.

¶29

Respondent No.1 has filed written statement

¶30

admitting that he is the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶31

¶32

However, he has contended that at the time of accident, he was driving the vehicle cautiously and it was the petitioner who was driving the motor cycle in rash or negligent manner and caused the accident.

¶33

Respondent No.2 has filed written statement

¶34

admitting the coverage of the vehicle as on the date of accident by a valid policy issued by it. However, it has denied the remaining averments regarding the allegations of rash or negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation, nature of the injury sustained by the petitioner and that it has resulted in permanent partial disability of the petitioner. The compensation claimed is on the higher side and in the event of granting compensation the interest is to be restricted to 6% p.a.

¶35

In support of his claim, petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and one witness as PW-2. He has relied upon Ex.P1 to 11.

¶36

¶37

Vide the impugned judgment and award the Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of

¶38

Rs.2,60,603/- with interest at 8% p.a. as detailed below:

¶39

Heads	Amount In Rs.
Loss of future income	1,17,000
Pain and suffering	30,000
Medical expenses	13,603
Loss of income during laid up period	30,000
Food and nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	25,000
Loss of future amenity	20,000
Future medical expenses	25,000
TOTAL	2,60,603

¶40

Heard arguments on behalf of learned counsel for both parties and perused the records.

¶41

Petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment and award contending that the income taken at Rs.7,500/- is on the lower side and it should have been Rs.20,000/- p.m. The compensation granted under the head pain and suffering, future loss of income, loss of income during the laid up period, conveyance, nourishment

¶42

¶43

attendance charges and future medical expenses is on the lower side.

¶44

Admittedly, respondents have not challenged the impugned judgment and award.

¶45

Petitioner has claimed that he is a cook by profession and at the time of accident, he was earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. However, he has not placed any material on record to establish that he was earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. In the absence of the same, notional income is to be taken. Since the accident took place during 2018, the notional income as per the Lok Adalath chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority which is based on minimum wages may be taken Rs.12,500/-. However, the Tribunal has taken the income of the petitioner as Rs.7,500/-. Therefore, calculations are to be made based on Rs.12,500/- as the notional income.

¶46

¶47

Loss of future earnings: Claimant has led evidence establishing that he has suffered 57% disability and the Tribunal has taken 1/3^rd of it to the whole body at 10% which is not correct. 1/3^rd of it should have been 19%. At the time of accident, the petitioner was aged 47 years and hence the multiplier ‘13’ taken by the Tribunal is correct. Therefore, the loss of future earnings is Rs.12,500 x 12 x 13 x 19% = Rs.3,70,500/-.

¶48

Loss of income during laid up period: The Tribunal has granted Rs.30,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period i.e., Rs.7,500 x 4 months. Since, the notional income is to be taken at Rs.12,500, for four months, the compensation under the head loss of income during the laid up period comes to Rs.50,000/-.

¶49

Medical expenses: Based on the medical bills, the Tribunal has granted Rs.13,603/- under the head medical expenses which is correct and there is no scope for interference under the said head.

¶50

¶51

Pain and sufferings: Since the petitioner has

¶52

suffered fracture of the shaft of the left femur, the compensation granted in a sum of Rs.30,000/- under the head pain and suffering is also correct.

¶53

Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges: Since, the petitioner is held to have taken treatment for four months, the compensation granted under the head food nourishment, conveyance and attendance charges at Rs.25,000/- appears to be on the lower side and the same is increased to Rs.35,000/-.

¶54

Future medical expenses: In the absence of material regarding estimation of Rs.40,000/- towards future medical expenses, the compensation granted in a sum of Rs.25,000/- is correct and requires no interference. Since the claimant has suffered fracture of shaft of the left femur resulting in permanent partial disability, compensation granted in a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of

¶55

¶56

amenities is on the lower side and it is increased to Rs.30,000/-.

¶57

compensation in sum of Rs.5,54,103/- as detailed below:

¶58

Heads	Amount granted by the Tribunal In Rs.	Amount granted by this Court In Rs.
Loss of future income	1,17,000	3,70,500
Pain and suffering	30,000	30,000
Medical expenses	13,603	13,603
Loss of income during laid up period	30,000	50,000
Food and nourishment,	25,000	35,000
conveyance and attendant charges
Loss of future amenity	20,000	30,000
Future medical expenses	25,000	25,000
Total	2,60,603	5,54,103

¶59

The Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of

¶60

8% p.a without any basis and therefore, it is confined to 6% p.a.

¶61

To this extent impugned judgment and award is

¶62

liable to be modified and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶63

¶64

ORDER

¶65

Appeal is allowed in part.

¶66

The impugned judgment and award dated in MVC.No.2045/2018 dated 09.04.2019 the file of Court of Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru is modified by increasing the compensation to Rs.5,54,103/as against Rs.2,60,603/-with interest at 6% p.a.

¶67

The respondent No.2 Insurance company is directed to pay the amount along with interest to the claimant within a period of two months minus the compensation already paid.

¶68

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

Bhaskar Rao H R v. v Muniyappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskar Rao H R v. v Muniyappa

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

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Susheela Devadiga

Smt Susheelamma Vs Sri a v Krishna Kumar Reddy

Sri Hanumappa Vs Sri Mansoor Ali

Smt. Nagamma @ Nagmani Vs Sri. Papegowda G.H

Kum. Fathima Vs Mr. Dayananda Nayak

Smt Lakshmidevi Vs Mr Sali Mathew v