Partly allowed

Sri S Munegowda v. M/S Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Karnataka HC7 Dec 2023MFA/1484/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous first appeal regarding a motorcycle accident, the High Court of Karnataka enhanced the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The court assessed notional income, adjusted disability percentages, and increased awards for loss of future income, lost time, and amenities while reducing the interest rate from 9% to 6% based on a Division Bench precedent.

What did the court decide?

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified; the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 6,75,000 with interest at 6% p.a.

Sri S Munegowda Vs M/S Reliance General Insurance… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:44305 MFA No. 1484 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1484 OF 2021 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI S MUNEGOWDA S/O SONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU PIN 560 067.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K T.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

M/S RELIANCE GENERAL

¶12

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MOTOR CLAIMS HUB NO.28, 5TH FLOOR CENTERNARY BUILDING EAST WING, NEAR CITY BANK M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 BY ITS MANAGER.

¶14

MRS. MAYA CHOWDHAURY W/O RAKESH CHOWDHURY NO.70/A/7, KHATIR BAZAR LANE MAHESH-1, SERAMPORE HOOGHLY, WEST BENGAL-712 202.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B.,ADVOCATE FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:44305 MFA No. 1484 of 2021

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 20.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1178/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL SMALL CUSES JUDGE AND XXIII A.C.M.M., MEMBER, M.A.C.T., MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (SCCH-19), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles

¶22

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.02.2019 passed by MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.1178/2018.

¶23

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly

¶24

stated are that on 15.02.2018 at about 01.30 p.m., the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-53/ER-8698 proceeding on Kadugodi Road, carefully and cautiously when reached near Goravigere Petrol Bunk, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru District, at that time, the driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No.WB-

¶25

11/B-0251 drove the same in a rash and negligent, so as

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:44305 MFA No. 1484 of 2021

¶27

to endanger human life, came at high speed and took a U turn and dashed to the claimant’s motorcycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶28

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 driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶29

On service of notice, the respondent No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false 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

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:44305 MFA No. 1484 of 2021

¶31

claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

The respondent No.2 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed exparte.

¶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.Krishna Prasad was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 and 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 of Rs.5,34,000/- along with interest at the

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:44305 MFA No. 1484 of 2021

¶35

rate of 9% p.a. (excluding the interest on future medical expenses) and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶36

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

¶37

a) Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was doing coolie work and earning Rs.500/- per day, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.9,000/- p.m.

¶38

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 44% to particular limb and 15% to whole body. But the Tribunal has taken the whole body disability at 13%, which is on the lower side.

¶39

c) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 2 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He

¶40

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:44305 MFA No. 1484 of 2021

¶41

has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side. Further, the Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation towards 'loss of income during laid-up period'. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶42

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

¶43

a) Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.500/- per day, 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.

¶44

b) Secondly, the Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and evidence of the doctor, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 13%.

¶45

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:44305 MFA No. 1484 of 2021

¶46

c) Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are just and reasonable and it does not call for interference.

¶47

d) Lastly, in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others –vVenkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher side. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶48

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶49

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶50

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained

¶51

injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 15.2.2018

¶52

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:44305 MFA No. 1484 of 2021

¶53

due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶54

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.500/- per day. 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 income has to be taken at Rs.12,500/- p.m.

¶55

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained closed both bone fracture distal end left leg and fracture of 2^nd and 3^rd metatarsal left foot. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 44% to particular limb and 15% to whole body. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at 13%. The claimant is aged about 39 years at the time of the

¶56

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:44305 MFA No. 1484 of 2021

¶57

accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘15’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.292,500/- (Rs.12,5001215*13%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶58

The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 2 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.12,500*2 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶59

The claimant was treated as inpatient for more than 2 days in the hospital and thereafter, has received further treatment. Hence, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded under the head of ‘food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges’ from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/- .

¶60

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He has

¶61

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:44305 MFA No. 1484 of 2021

¶62

suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to suffer with the disability stated by the doctor throughout his life. Considering the same, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.40,000/- .

¶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 compensation:

¶65

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	60,000	60,000
Medical expenses	2,22,316	2,22,316
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	1,000	5,000
Loss of income during	0	25,000

¶66

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:44305 MFA No. 1484 of 2021

¶67

laid up period
Loss of amenities	10,000	40,000
Loss of future income	2,10,600	2,92,500
Future medical expenses	30,000	30,000
Total	5,33,916	6,74,816
Rounded off	5,34,000	6,75,000

¶68

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶69

ORDER

¶70

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶71

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.675,000/-.

¶72

d) In view of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘MS.JOYEETA BOSE’ (supra) , the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum.

¶73

e) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest

¶74

12 - NC: 2023:KHC:44305 MFA No. 1484 of 2021

¶75

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 excluding interest for the compensation awarded under the head of 'future medical expenses'.

¶76

f) In view of the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by this Court, the claimant is not entitled for interest on the enhanced amount for the delayed period of 273 days in filing the appeal.

¶77

Sd/JUDGE

¶78

¶79

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 28

Sri S Munegowda v. M/S Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S Munegowda v. M/S Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

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 Sunil Kumar C Vs the Manager Hdfc Ergo Insurance Co. Ltd.

Venkatesh E Vs the Managing Director Bmtc

Smt R Ambika Vs the Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Mr Sriram Vs the Manager

Sri G Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Ganapathi Vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Smt. Rukmini C. M. Vs the Manager