Partly allowed

Mr Vinod K v. Mr Kumar C M

Karnataka HC20 Oct 2022MFA/871/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed part of an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court enhanced compensation for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, food/conveyance, and loss of income during the laid-up period, while upholding the amount for future medical expenses. The total compensation was increased to Rs.4,02,460.

What did the court decide?

Compensation increased to Rs.4,02,460 payable with interest; Insurance Company directed to deposit amount within six weeks.

Mr Vinod K Vs Mr Kumar C M — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.871 OF 2019(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Mr. Vinod K., S/o Krishnashetty, Aged 22 years, R/at Nerala Villag, Kowlande Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk- 571301. … Appellant

¶9

(By Sri. Nagaraja R.C., Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Mr. Kumar C.M.,

¶12

S/o Nanjappa,

¶13

Age 31 years, Chikkabidarakallu Village,

¶14

Bengaluru South, Bengaluru, Karnataka-5600 73.

¶15

Divisional Manager, KSRTC, Bagepalli Block, Chikkaballapura Division, Chikkaballapura-562101. ... Respondents

¶16

(By Sri. F.S.Dabali, Advocate for R2: Notice to R1 is dispensed with v/o dated: 05.07.2022)

¶17

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated:26.06.2018 passed in MVC

¶18

¶19

No.508/2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, MACT, Nanjangud, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation. This MFA, coming on for admission, this day, this Court, delivered the following:

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶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 and decree dated 26.06.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanjangud in MVC No.508/2017.

¶23

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 31.10.2016 at about 12.00 p.m., the claimant was proceeding in the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-09/EY-6345 as a pillion rider from Mahadeshwara Hill towards their village. When they reached near Mallaianapura Village on Kollegala – Mahadeshwara Hills Main road, at that time, KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-40/F-763 being driven by its

¶24

¶25

driver 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.

¶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 age, avocation and income of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent

¶28

¶29

riding of the vehicle by the rider of the motorcycle. It was further pleaded that the rider of the motorcycle did not have valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. 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 exparte.

¶31

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

¶32

Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and other two witnesses as PW-2 and PW-3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and no documents were exhibited. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the

¶33

¶34

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.2,78,960/along with interest @ 6% p.a. and directed the Corporation to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this 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 coolie work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as only Rs.7,000/- per month.

¶37

Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 15 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 life.

¶38

¶39

Considering the same, the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the heads of 'pain and sufferings', 'loss of amenities' and other heads are on the lower side. The Tribunal has failed to award compensation under the head ‘food, conveyance and nourishment’.

¶40

Thirdly, even though the doctor has deposed that the claimant requires Rs.25,000/- for removal of implants, the Tribunal has only awarded Rs.15,000/- under the said head. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶41

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

¶42

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. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.

¶43

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

¶44

¶45

claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable compensation.

¶46

Thirdly, even though the doctor has deposed that the claimant requires Rs.25,000/- for removal of implants, the claimant has not produced any document in respect of future surgery. Hence the compensation granted under the said head is just and reasonable. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.15,000/per month. He has not produced any documents to prove his income. Therefore, the notional income has to be

¶50

¶51

assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since the accident has taken place in the year 2016, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.9,500/- p.m. Due to the accident, the claimant has sustained lacerated injury over right middle 1/3^rd of thigh, open wound in upper 1/3^rd of right leg, lacerated injury over the medial aspect of right foot and crush injury right middle finger. The doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 29% to right lower limb and the Tribunal has rightly assessed the whole body disability as 10%. The claimant was aged about 21 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.2,05,200/- (Rs.95001218*10%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶52

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He was treated as inpatient for more than 15 days in the hospital

¶53

¶54

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.50,000/-, 'loss of amenities' from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. The claimant is also entitled to compensation under the head ‘food, conveyance and nourishment’ at Rs.10,000/- and 'loss of income during laid-up period' for a period of three months, i.e., Rs.28,500/-.

¶55

The claimant has examined the doctor, who in his testimony stated that the claimant requires about Rs.25,000/- towards ‘future medical expenses’. Considering the injuries suffered by the claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the said head at Rs.15,000/is just and reasonable.

¶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

¶59

compensation:

¶60

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	53,760	53,760
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	0	10,000
Loss of income during laid up period	14,000	28,500
Loss of amenities	30,000	40,000
Loss of future income	1,51,200	2,05,200
Future medical expenses	15,000	15,000
Total	2,93,960	4,02,460

¶61

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

¶62

¶63

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,02,460/- as against Rs.2,93,960/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶64

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 excluding interest for the compensation awarded under the head of 'future medical expenses'.

¶65

Cm/-

Mr Vinod K v. Mr Kumar C M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Vinod K v. Mr Kumar C M

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 Krupashankar Vs Sri Yogesh H R

M Chethan Vs the Manager

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajanna S/O Siddappa

H.Vanajakshi Vs M.B.Manjunatha

Suresh Dhanashetti Vs M/S Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd

Sri Sharanabasappa Vs Bhavya N