Partly allowed

Sri. Srinivasa R v. M/S Technocast Foundary

Karnataka HC17 Oct 2022MFA/921/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed part of the appeal filed by the claimant against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The High Court modified the impugned judgment by enhancing compensation for loss of income during the laid-up period and for pain and sufferings and loss of amenities, while retaining other heads of compensation. Interest was fixed at 6% on enhanced amounts.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.3,46,450/- with interest @6% p.a. on enhanced portion and @8% p.a. on original portion, to be paid within six weeks.

Sri. Srinivasa R Vs M/S Technocast Foundary — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.921 OF 2020(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. Srinivasa R, S/o Late Ramaiah, Aged about 57 years, R/at No.92, II Stage, Kuvempu Nagara, Jalahalli East, Bangalore-560 0014. … Appellant

¶9

(By Sri.Shripad V Shastri, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

M/s Technocast Foundary, S.F.No.127/3B, Santothipalayam Road, Arasur, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu.

¶12

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Motor Dealer Division, Krishi Bhavan 6^th Floor, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru-01, By its Manager. ... Respondents

¶13

(By Sri.L.Sreekanta Rao, Advocate for R2: Notice to R1 is D/W V/O dated: 06.04.2022)

¶14

¶15

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated:11.06.2019 passed in MVC No.4475/2018 on the file of the III-Additional Judge and Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (Scch-18), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶16

This MFA, coming on for admission, this day, this Court, delivered the following:

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles

¶19

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2019 passed by the III Addl. Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) in MVC No.4475/2018.

¶20

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 04.07.2017 at about 9.40 a.m. the claimant was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-04/HK-3784 from Sadashivanagar towards Vidyaranyapura on pipeline road. When he reached

¶21

¶22

near Gate No.7, MSR Hospital, Bengaluru, at that time, rider of another motorcycle bearing registration No.TN37/BV-6305 being ridden by its rider 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

¶23

sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶24

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.

¶25

On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statements in which the averments made in the petition were denied. The

¶26

age, avocation and income of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself

¶27

¶28

is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶29

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

¶30

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

¶31

Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and Dr.Rahul P. was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. On behalf of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor got exhibited documents. 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

¶32

¶33

sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,58,144/along with interest @ 8% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶34

Sri Shripad V.Shastry, the learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions:

¶35

Firstly, due to the accident the claimant was unable to attend the office for 205 days, he has taken leave for that period. But the Tribunal has awarded compensation under the head 'loss of income during laid-up period' only for a period of two months.

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

life. Considering the same, the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the heads of 'pain and sufferings', 'loss of amenities' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side.

¶39

Fourthly, the claimant has undergone surgery, he has examined the doctor who deposed that the claimant requires Rs.70,000/- for removal of implants. But the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.20,000/- for 'future medical expenses', which is on the lower side. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶40

On the other hand, Sri L.Sreekanta Rao, the

¶41

learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised following counter contentions:

¶42

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he has taken leave for a period of 205 days as rest as per the doctor’s advise, the doctor has not deposed regarding the same.

¶43

¶44

Secondly, the claimant has not proved by producing

¶45

any document that he has taken leave because of the injury suffered by him in the accident. The Tribunal has rightly considered two months period for awarding compensation under the head 'loss of income during laid-up period'.

¶46

Thirdly, the injury suffered by the claimant are minor in nature, he was inpatient only for a period of three days. Considering the evidence of the doctor and injuries suffered by the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable compensation.

¶47

Fourthly, even though the doctor has deposed that the claimant requires Rs.70,000/- for removal of implants the Tribunal has granted Rs.20,000/- towards 'future medical expenses'. The claimant has not produced any document even before this Court to show that he has undergone any surgery for removal of implants. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the said head is just and reasonable.

¶48

¶49

Fifthly, in view of the law laid down by a Division

¶50

Bench of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS ( MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 8% p.a. is on the higher side. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶51

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

¶52

It is not in dispute that the claimant has

¶53

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

¶54

At the time of the accident the claimant was aged about 56 years and working as Telecom Technician. Considering his salary certificate the Tribunal has rightly

¶55

¶56

assessed the monthly income of the claimant has Rs.48,306/-.

¶57

Even though the claimant has claimed that he has taken leave of 205 days he has not produced any document to show that he has taken rest due to accidental injury. Considering the injuries suffered by the claimant and considering the leave particulars Ex.P11, I am of the opinion that 'loss of income during laid-up period' can be awarded for three months instead of two months awarded by the Tribunal.

¶58

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

¶59

¶60

'pain and sufferings' from R.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/-, 'loss of amenities' from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.

¶61

The claimant has examined the doctor PW-2, who in his testimony stated that the claimant requires about Rs.70,000/- towards ‘future medical expenses’. But even before this Court the claimant has not produced any document to show that he has undergone any surgery. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under

¶62

the said head is just and reasonable.

¶63

Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶64

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following

¶65

compensation:

¶66

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	40,000	50,000
Medical expenses	6,532	6,532
Food, nourishment,	15,000	15,000

¶67

¶68

conveyance and attendant charges
Loss of income during	96,612	1,44,918
laid up period
Loss of amenities	10,000	40,000
Reduced eligibility of employment or damages due to disability	70,000	70,000
Future medical expenses	20,000	20,000
Total	2,58,144	3,46,450

¶69

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

¶70

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,46,450/- as against Rs.2,58,144/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶71

In view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in JOYEETA BOSE (supra) the enhanced compensation carries interest @ 6% p.a.

¶72

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 8% p.a. (interest @ 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation) from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of

¶73

¶74

realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment excluding interest for the

¶75

compensation awarded under the head of 'future medical

¶76

expenses'.

¶77

Cm/-

Sri. Srinivasa R v. M/S Technocast Foundary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Srinivasa R v. M/S Technocast Foundary

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. K.Nagendar @ Dinna Vs Sri. K.Girish

Siddamma Vs Keshava Murthy

Revanna Vs Keshava Murthy M C

Krishnappa B Vs M/S Royal Sundaram

Kaleemulla Vs the Head Master

Lokesh Vs Mahesh B R