Partly allowed

Sri B M Gangadhar v. Sri Raju

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2023MFA/1035/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This First Appeal challenged a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order granting Rs.6.61 lakh. The High Court enhanced total compensation to Rs.8.61 lakh by adding loss of income during the laid-up period and recalculating future loss, while affirming other heads. Interest rate set at 6% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.8,61,000; loss of income for laid up period awarded at Rs.25,000; interest fixed at 6% p.a.

Sri B M Gangadhar Vs Sri Raju — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41941 MFA No. 1035 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1035 OF 2022 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI B M GANGADHAR S/O MOTAVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT BYATARAYANAHALLI VILLAGE ARALERI POST, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT. …APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. KAILAS SHANKAR P S.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SRI RAJU S/O KRISHNAPPA MAJOR R/AT NOSAGERE VILLAGE Digitally signed by HURALAGERE POST, MALUR TALUK DHANALAKSHMI KOLAR DISTRICT. MURTHY Location: High Court of 2. THE MANAGER Karnataka

¶11

THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.18 KRISHI BHAVAN,5TH FLOOR OPP HUDSON CIRCLE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENTS

¶12

(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 22.11.2023)

¶13

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:41941 MFA No. 1035 of 2022

¶14

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 2.12.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 7374/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (SCCH-5), BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶15

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

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.12.2019 passed by the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.7374/2018.

¶18

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

¶19

briefly stated are that on 09.10.2018 at about 7.45 a.m. the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-04/HN-3472 from his village Byatarayananalli on Byatarayanahalli-Chikkakunturu road. At that time, another motorcycle bearing registration

¶20

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:41941 MFA No. 1035 of 2022

¶21

No.KA-08/S-3875 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 fell down, sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶22

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.

¶23

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 accident was due to the rash and negligent riding of the vehicle by the claimant himself. It was further pleaded that the rider of the offending vehicle did not have valid

¶24

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:41941 MFA No. 1035 of 2022

¶25

driving licence as on the date of the accident. 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, he sought for dismissal of the petition. The respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-parte.

¶26

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

¶27

Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW1 and Dr.Krishan Prasad as PW2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R2. 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 sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation

¶28

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:41941 MFA No. 1035 of 2022

¶29

of Rs.6,61,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶30

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

¶31

(i) Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as only Rs.9,000/- per month.

¶32

(ii) Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 17% to whole body. But the Tribunal has erred in taking the whole body disability at only 12%.

¶33

(iii) Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 13 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to suffer the disability and unhappiness throughout his life.

¶34

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:41941 MFA No. 1035 of 2022

¶35

Considering the same, the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side and the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for 'loss of income during laid-up period'. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶36

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following contentions:

¶37

(i) Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, he has not produced any documents to establish his income. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.

¶38

(ii) Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 17% to whole body. The Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 12%.

¶39

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:41941 MFA No. 1035 of 2022

¶40

(iii) Thirdly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. He was inpatient for only 13 days. Considering the evidence of the doctor and the injuries suffered by the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

¶41

(iv) Fourthly, in view of the Division Bench decision

¶42

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 interest granted by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% p.a. is on the higher side and the same has to be reduced to 6% p.a. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶43

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

¶44

It is not in dispute that the claimant suffered injuries in the accident occurred on 09.10.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-08/S-3875 by its rider.

¶45

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:41941 MFA No. 1035 of 2022

¶46

The claimant has not produced any evidence with regard to his income. Therefore, the 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 2018, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.12,500/- p.m. Due to the accident the claimant has suffered major facial bone trauma and left clavicle fracture and other injuries. The claimant was inpatient for 13 days. PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 17% to whole body. Taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor, PW-2 and injuries suffered by the claimant, the whole body disability is taken at 17%. The claimant was aged about 41 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘14’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,57,000/- (Rs.12,5001214*17%) on account of 'loss of future income'. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries, he has suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to suffer with the disability

¶47

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:41941 MFA No. 1035 of 2022

¶48

and unhappiness throughout his life. Considering the same, I am of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to 'loss of income during laid-up period' for a period of two months, i.e., Rs.25,000/(Rs.12,500*2). The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶49

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following

¶50

compensation:

¶51

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	75,000	75,000
Medical expenses	3,59,000	3,59,000
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	15,000	15,000
Loss of income during laid up period	0	25,000
Loss of amenities	30,000	30,000
Loss of future income	1,82,000	3,57,000
Total	6,61,000	8,61,000

¶52

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:41941 MFA No. 1035 of 2022

¶53

In view of the above, I pass the following order:

¶54

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶55

(ii) The judgment of the claims Tribunal is modified. The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.8,61,000/- in place of Rs.6,61,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶56

(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest 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.

¶57

(iv) The enhanced compensation carries interest @

6% p.a.

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 10

Sri B M Gangadhar v. Sri Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B M Gangadhar v. Sri Raju

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 H B Rajaram Vs Sri C Lakshminarayana

Sri Sheik Babu Vs Sri Raghushankar

Sri S Soundararajan Vs Mr v Nagaraj

Mr Nagarjun Kumar v Vs M/S New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Shankara Poojary Vs Harish Devadiga

Sri Rangaswamy Vs Sri Srinivasa