Partly allowed

Sri Ramesh M S v. Sri Papegowda

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2023MFA/1009/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal judgment sought enhancement of compensation awarded to a pillion rider injured in a motorcycle accident. The Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the compensation amount by awarding an additional sum based on reassessment of pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss of future income.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs.78,500/- along with interest at 6% p.a.; the insurance company directed to deposit the total amount within six weeks.

Sri Ramesh M S Vs Sri Papegowda — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:24570 MFA No. 1009 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1009 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI RAMESH M. S, S/O SOORAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MAKULI VILLAGE, SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK - 573 201, HASSAN.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI CHETHAN B, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI PAPEGOWDA, S/O. THIRUMALEGOWDA, MAJOR, R/O: DODDABAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KITTANE POST, KATTAYA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK-573 201, HASSAN.

¶13

THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., CHANDANA COMPLEX, HARSHAMAHAL ROAD, HASSAN CITY, HASSAN-573 201.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; V/O DATED 19.04.2018, NOTICE TO R-1 IS D/W)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:24570 MFA No. 1009 of 2017

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02/05/2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1013/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., HASSAN PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

¶22

The petitioner in MVC.No.1013/2014 is before this Court in appeal assailing the judgment and award passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hassan dated 02.05.2016, whereby, the petitioner herein was awarded a sum of Rs.2,11,569/- for the injuries suffered by him.

¶23

The petitioner contends that he was a pillion rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-13-Y-4030 on 19.02.2014 and the rider of the said motorcycle was negligent and therefore, while overtaking a lorry, he fell into a ditch resulting in injuries to the petitioner. The petitioner had suffered dislocation of the right elbow and fracture of lateral malleolous on the right side with two simple injuries. Therefore, he claimed for

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC:24570 MFA No. 1009 of 2017

¶25

¶26

an adequate compensation from the respondents. He also contended that he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month by doing agriculture.

¶27

On issuance of notice, respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared through its counsel before the Tribunal and respondent No.1 did not appear despite proper notice and was placed exparte.

¶28

Respondent No.2-Insurance Company contended that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in law and it also disputed that the valid driving licence of the rider of the motorcycle. It also contended that there was violation of conditions of policy and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶29

On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues and during the enquiry, the petitioner was examined as PW.1 and the Doctor who assessed the disability was examined as PW.2 and Exs.P1 to 12 were marked. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents and the Tribunal awarded compensation under the different heads as below:

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:24570 MFA No. 1009 of 2017

¶32

PARTICULARS	AMOUNT (IN RS.)
Pain and sufferings	40,000/-
Medical expenses	11,169/-
Conveyance, Attendant, Nourishing food and other incidental expenses	5,000/-
Loss of future income on account of permanent disability	1,22,400/-
Loss of amenities and life expectancy	15,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period	18,000/-
TOTAL	2,11,569/-

¶33

Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant

¶34

is before this Court in appeal.

¶35

On issuance of notice, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company has appeared through its counsel and notice to respondent No.1 was dispensed with.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends

¶37

that the notional income considered by the Tribunal is on the lower side and it had not properly assessed the income of the petitioner. He also contends that the compensation awarded under the remaining heads of the compensation is also on the lower side and therefore, reassessment of the compensation is necessary.

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:24570 MFA No. 1009 of 2017

¶39

Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company contends that the Tribunal has assessed the disability in a proper way and there is no need for enhancement of the compensation.

¶40

The petitioner contends that he was an agriculturist and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. But there is no cogent evidence to prove such income from the agricultural lands. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that notional income has to be accepted. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Tribunal had to take notional income that would be applicable for the year 2014. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for settlement of the disputes before the Lok-Adalat prescribed a notional income of Rs.8,500/-p.m. for the year 2014. In umpteen number of decisions, it has been held that the guidelines issued by the KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act and therefore, the notional income of the petitioner is considered at Rs.8,500/- per month.

¶41

PW.2 who assessed the disability of the petitioner had stated that there is 15% disability to the lower limb, 15% to the

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:24570 MFA No. 1009 of 2017

¶43

upper limb and therefore, the total whole body disability is assessed at 30% and the Tribunal has assessed the functional disability at 10%. No interference is required in respect of the disability assessed by the Tribunal. Hence, 'loss of future income' is calculated as: Rs.8,500/- X 12 X 17 X 10% = Rs.1,73,400/-.

¶44

As a consequence, the compensation under the head of 'loss of income during the laid up period' for a period of three months is reassessed at Rs.25,500/- (Rs.8,500/- X 3).

¶45

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'pain and suffering' and in view of the fact that there are two fractures, the compensation under the head of 'pain and suffering' is held to be Rs.50,000/-.

¶46

The petitioner being an agriculturist has suffered injury to his arm, which is going to affect his efficiency in his avocation as an agriculturist for the rest of his life. Therefore, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards 'loss of amenities in life'.

¶47

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'medical expenses', 'conveyance, attendant and

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:24570 MFA No. 1009 of 2017

¶49

¶50

nourishment expenses', are adequate and do not require any reassessment.

¶51

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the modified

¶52

compensation under different heads as below:

¶53

PARTICULARS	AMOUNT (IN RS.)
Loss of future income	1,73,400/-
Loss of income during the laid up period	25,500/-
Pain and suffering	50,000/-
Loss of amenities in life	25,000/-
Medical expenses	11,169/-
Conveyance, attendant and nourishment expenses	5,000/-
TOTAL	2,90,069/-
Less awarded by Tribunal	2,11,569/-
Enhancement	78,500/-

¶54

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for enhanced

¶55

compensation of Rs.78,500/- with interest and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶58

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the

¶59

Tribunal is modified by awarding a sum of Rs.78,500/- in addition

¶60

NC: 2023:KHC:24570 MFA No. 1009 of 2017

¶61

¶62

to what has been awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit.

¶63

(iii) The respondent No.2/Insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

¶64

(iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal stands unaltered.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

NR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 87

Sri Ramesh M S v. Sri Papegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramesh M S v. Sri Papegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Raghu Kumar D M

The Managing Director Vs Imran Pasha

Chipili Krishna B M Vs State of Karnataka

Abdul Hameed S/O Abdul Gani Vs Mehaboobsab and Ors.

Mr. v Nagaraj Vs Mr. Dinesh Koushik

Sri Prasanna Vs Boregowda