Allowed

Anusha v. H S Surendra

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2022MFA/8727/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the appellant's appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award, enhancing compensation on heads of food and attendant charges, loss of amenities, and significantly increasing loss of future income. Total compensation enhanced to Rs.8,48,600.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.8,48,600; Insurance Company directed to deposit amount with interest within six weeks.

Anusha Vs H S Surendra — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.8727 OF 2018 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Anusha, D/o Shankaregowda, Aged about 19 years, R/at No.293, 1^st Main, Datta Nagara, Mysuru – 570 025.

¶9

… Appellant

¶10

(By Sri.Mahadeva Swamy.P., Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

H.S.Surendra, S/o Suryanarayana, Aged about 36 years, Door No.WA-132, Sewage Farm road, Kankagiri, Mysuru City – 570 015.

¶13

The Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Chamarajanagara Division, Chamarajanagar – 14.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

(By Smt.S.Nirmala, Advocate for R2; Notice to R1 is dispensed with)

¶16

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 04.07.2018 passed in MVC No.1097/2015 on the file of the Judge, Additional

¶17

¶18

Court of Small Causes, Mysuru, as a Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation. This MFA, coming on for Hearing, 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 04.07.2018 passed

¶21

by MACT, Mysuru in MVC No.1097/2015.

¶22

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

¶23

briefly stated are that on 21.01.2015 at about 6.00 a.m. the claimant was proceeding on her bicycle on Nanjangud road to attend SSLC tuition classes. When she reached near GAnapathi Sachidananda Ashrama, at that time, a bus bearing registration No.KA-57/F878 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a

¶24

rash and negligent manner, dashed to the bicycle of

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that she 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.

¶28

On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed separate written statements 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

¶29

¶30

that the accident was due to the negligence of the claimant herself. It was further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. It was pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶31

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The guardian of the claimant was examined as PW-1, Dr.Vinayak I Kadlimatti was examined as PW-2 and the claimant herself was examined as PW-3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P26. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and no documents were marked. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent

¶32

¶33

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.5,68,400/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Corporation to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶34

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

¶35

Firstly, at the time of the accident the claimant was aged about 16 years, she was studying in SSLC . Due to the accident she has suffered grievous injuries. She has examined the doctor who has assessed the disability of 29%. Since the injury suffered by the claimant is head injury, the neurological surgeon has rightly assessed the disability suffered by the claimant as 29%. The Tribunal has erred in considering the whole body disability as 10%.

¶36

¶37

Secondly, the claimant is a very bright student and had a very good future. The loss of future income has to be assessed considering the notional income. In support of his contention he has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of KAJAL vs. JAGDISH CHAND AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2020 SC 776.

¶38

Thirdly, due to the accident the claimant has suffered grievous injuries, she was unable to continue her studies, she has lost one academic year and she has suffered lot of pain during treatment and she has to suffer the disability and unhappiness throughout her life. She was inpatient for a period of 40 days. 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.

¶39

¶40

Fourthly, since the claimant has suffered head injury, she has been taken care of by an attender. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head ‘attendant charges’.

¶41

Lastly, due to the injuries suffered in the accident there is disfigurement. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head ‘loss of marriage prospects’. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶42

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

¶43

Firstly, even though the claimant contends that the doctor has assessed the disability as 29%, considering the injuries suffered by the claimant and considering the age, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the whole body disability as 10%.

¶44

¶45

Secondly, there is no loss of academic year since the claimant has appeared for the examination in the year 2016 and she has passed SSLC and she has continued her studies. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not granted any compensation for ‘future loss of earnings’.

¶46

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

¶47

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶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

¶50

Due to the accident the claimant has suffered severe head injury with diffuses axonal injury. She has examined the doctor Vinayak I.Kadlimatti. In his evidence he has deposed that the claimant has suffered 29% disability. Since the injury suffered by the claimant is head injury, considering the evidence of the doctor and considering the wound certificate, I am of the opinion that the whole body disability has to be assessed at 15%. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of KAJAL (supra) has held that in case of minors, who are students, their notional income has to

¶51

be assessed as per the salary of the skilled workman. Hence, 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 2015, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.9,000/- p.m. The claimant was aged about 16 years at the time of the accident and

¶52

¶53

multiplier applicable to her age group is ‘18’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,91,600/- (Rs.9,0001218*15%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶54

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. She was treated as inpatient for more than 40 days in the hospital and thereafter, has received further treatment. She has suffered lot of pain during treatment and she has to suffer with the disability and unhappiness throughout her life. Considering the same, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head the 'loss of amenities' from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. The claimant is entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards ‘Food and attendant charges’ and Rs.50,000/- towards ‘loss of marriage prospects’.

¶55

¶56

Considering the nature of injuries, the

¶57

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other

¶58

heads is just and reasonable.

¶59

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

¶60

following compensation:

¶61

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	50,000	50,000
Medical expenses	3,42,000	3,42,000
Food and attendant charges	0	15,000
Loss of income during laid up period	50,000	50,000
Loss of amenities	40,000	50,000
Loss of future income	86,400	2,91,600
Loss of marriage prospects	0	50,000
Total	5,68,400	8,48,600

¶62

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.

¶63

The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶64

¶65

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.8,48,600/- as against Rs.5,68,400/- 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

¶67

the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

Cm/-

Anusha v. H S Surendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anusha v. H S Surendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Nouws Bage @ Nubach Bage Vs the Managing Director

Mr.Nagaraj Vs Mr.Mahaboob Shariff

A.v.Shobha Vs Ganjeppagari Ampanna

Shivanna Vs Dayananda a C

The Divisional Manger Vs Smt Jayamma

Sri. Arkesh Vs Sri. Shivalingaiah