Partly allowed

Sri. Manjunatha K C v. Smt. Geetha

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2023MFA/1471/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special miscellaneous first appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court modified the Tribunal's award, enhancing compensation for a pillion rider injured in a rash-driving accident by assessing notional income at Rs.12,500 and whole body disability at 18%, resulting in a total award of Rs.6,45,613.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed in part; the Tribunal's judgment was modified to award a total compensation of Rs.6,45,613; the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount with interest.

Sri. Manjunatha K C Vs Smt. Geetha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:40604 MFA No. 1471 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1471 OF 2020 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. MANJUNATHA K C S/O CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT KOTHIHALLI VILLAGE KAMBATANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI TUMKURU TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. VASANTHAPPA., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT. GEETHA

¶12

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

D/O VEERABHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT NO.113, 9-A RAJATADRI SEVANTHI ROAD, ASHOKA ROAD ASOKA NAGARA, TUMKURU TUMKURU DISTRICT-572101.

¶14

THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. NO. 794/11, TRUNK ROAD POONAMALLEE, TIRUVALLUR TAMIL NADU STATE, BRANCH OFFICE THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. UPSTAIRS, JAYADEVA COMPLEX

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:40604 MFA No. 1471 of 2020

¶17

B H ROAD, TUMKURU BENGALURU-560025

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.H C VRUSHABENDRAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DATED: 21.03.2023)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.06.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.770/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles

¶24

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been

¶25

filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.06.2019 passed by MACT, Tumakuru in MVC No.770/2018.

¶26

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 12.06.2018 at about 06.00 p.m., the claimant as a pillion rider and his friend Rudresh were traveling from Kothihalli Village to Tumakuru in a

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40604 MFA No. 1471 of 2020

¶28

motorcycle Honda Shine CBF-125MCC bearing Registration No.KA-06-ER-3464 through Mallasandra-Tumakuru Road near Mallasandra Railway gate, on the main road, the rider of the said motorcycle rode it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and it was jumped over the humps. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant fell down from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶29

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 charges, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.

¶30

On service of notice, the respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and only respondent No.2 filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:40604 MFA No. 1471 of 2020

¶32

and frivolous in the eye of law. The age, avocation and income of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶33

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and Dr. T. S. Raghavendra was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined but got exhibited a document namely Ex.R1. 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 of Rs.3,86,513/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶34

and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:40604 MFA No. 1471 of 2020

¶36

compensation amount along with interest. Being

¶37

aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶38

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

¶39

a) Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was working as a District Coordinator in Government Hospital and earning Rs.20,500/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.8,000/- p.m.

¶40

b) Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-2. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 20% to whole body. But the Tribunal has taken the whole body disability at 15%, which is on the lower side.

¶41

c) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 8 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. Considering the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:40604 MFA No. 1471 of 2020

¶43

the heads of 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side. The Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation under the head of 'loss of amenities'. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶44

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

¶45

a) Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,500/- per month, he has not produced any documents to establish his income. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.

¶46

b) Secondly, even though the doctor has assessed the whole body disability at 20%, the fractures are reunited. Therefore, the Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and evidence of the doctor, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 15%.

¶47

c) Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the

¶48

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:40604 MFA No. 1471 of 2020

¶49

claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are just and reasonable and it does not call for interference. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶50

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

¶51

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 12.06.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶52

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,500/per month. He has not produced any documents to prove his income. Therefore, in the absence of proof of income, notional income has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2018, the notional

¶53

income has to be taken at Rs.12,500/- p.m.

¶54

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:40604 MFA No. 1471 of 2020

¶55

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained

¶56

burst fracture of body of L1 vertebra with retropulsion of the superior fractured fragment noted and etc. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 20% to whole body. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor, medical records and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, I am of the opinion that the whole body disability is assessed at 18%. The claimant is aged about 33 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘16’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs.12,5001216*18%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶57

The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 3 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.37,500/- (Rs.12,500*3 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶58

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:40604 MFA No. 1471 of 2020

¶59

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered

¶60

grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He was treated as inpatient for more than 8 days in the hospital. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to suffer with the disability stated by the doctor throughout his life. Considering the same, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of amenities'.

¶61

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

¶62

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:

¶63

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal	As awarded by this Court
	(Rs.)	(Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	40,000	40,000

¶64

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:40604 MFA No. 1471 of 2020

¶65

Medical expenses	61,113	61,113
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	25,000	25,000
Loss of income during laid up period	20,000	37,500
Loss of amenities	0	40,000
Loss of future income	2,30,400	4,32,000
Future medical expenses	10,000	10,000
Total	3,86,513	6,45,613

¶66

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶69

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,45,613/-.

¶70

d) 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

¶71

NC: 2023:KHC:40604 MFA No. 1471 of 2020

¶72

11 -

¶73

six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this

judgment .

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 44

Sri. Manjunatha K C v. Smt. Geetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Manjunatha K C v. Smt. Geetha

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

S.K.Narasimha Murthy Vs Kum.Swarna @ Preethi

R Saravanan Vs Smt R Chitra

Sri Raju H Vs Sri Babykutty

Ameer Jan Vs Smt. Saraswathi

M E Parvathamma Vs the Inspector of Excise

Sri.S Rajashekar Murthy, Vs Sri Deva Ram