Partly allowed

Sri Ganesha v. Sri Prasad B Banavalikar

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2023MFA/1813/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This composite order allows three miscellaneous first appeals filed by claimants against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court enhanced compensation awards for a deceased claimant and two injured sustained in a road accident involving rash and negligent driving. Adjustments were made for loss of dependency, future income, and amenities based on age and injury. Relief: Appeals allowed in pa

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to ₹4,40,000 in MFA 1813/2020, ₹2,22,120 in MFA 1812/2020, and ₹3,32,600 in MFA 1770/2020. Insurance Company directed to deposit amounts with interest.

Sri Ganesha Vs Sri Prasad B Banavalikar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1813 OF 2020(MV)

¶7

C/W

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1770 OF 2020(MV) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1812 OF 2020(MV)

¶9

IN MFA 1813/2020

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI GANESHA

¶12

S/O LATE NINGAPPA @ NINGOJI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT HANUMANTHAPPA KERI GADIKOPPA, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶13

SRI.KUMARA

¶14

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

S/O LATE NINGAPPA @ NINGOJI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT HANUMANTHAPPA KERI GADIKOPPA, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶16

SMT RENUKA BAI

¶17

W/O NAGARAJA RAO AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT LAKKAVALLI TARIKERE TALUK

¶18

CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-586201.

¶19

SMT PADMA

¶20

W/O SURESH RAO AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶21

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶23

R/AT ALKOLA NANDINI BADAVANE SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶24

SMT TUNGA W/O RAGHAVENDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT HANUMANTHAPPA KERI GADIKOPPA, SHIVAMOGGA-577201

¶25

…APPELLANTS

¶26

(BY SRI. M V MAHESWARAPPA., ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

SRI PRASAD B BANAVALIKAR S/O BOMMAIAH BANAVALIKAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT BELEKERE, KARVIVADA ANKOLA,KARWAR DISTRICT.

¶29

SRI SRINIVASA S/O GOVINDA KARVI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT MALLERA BETTA GANGOLLI, KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶30

THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY UNIVERSAL SAMPO GENERAL ASSURANCE CO. LTD., 3RD FLOOR, KVV SAMRAT 217/A, 3RD MAIN, OUTER RING ROAD KASTURINAGARA, BANGALORE-560043.

¶31

ULLAS B KARANTH PLOT NO.66, SAGAR SOCIETY DONA PAULA, NORTH GOA GOA-403002.

¶32

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶33

SRI R UMESH S/O R.M.RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT ASHAS NILAYA 4TH CROSS, NANDINI BADAVANE ALKOLA, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶34

6. THE MANAGER

¶35

UNIVERSAL SAMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. OPPOSITE TO VINAYAKA TALKIES, B.H.ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577201

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI.S V HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & 6: NOTICE TO R4 IS D/W V/O DATED:23.09.2022: NOTICE TO R1,2 & 5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶38

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 06.09.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.386/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT-VI, SHIVAMOGGA, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶39

IN MFA 1770/2020

¶40

BETWEEN:

¶41

SMT PADMA@ PADMAVATHI W/O SURESH RAO AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS WORKING AS COOK IN SAN JOS SCHOOL GADIKOPPA, SAGAR ROAD SHIVAMOGGA-577 201 R/AT 6^TH CROSS, A BLOCK NANDINI BADAVANE, ALKOLA SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶42

…APPELLANT

¶43

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶44

(BY SRI. M V MAHESWARAPPA., ADVOCATE)

¶45

AND:

¶46

SRI PRASAD B BANAVALIKAR S/O BOMMAIAH BANAVALIKAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT BELEKERE, KARVIVADA ANKOLA,KARWAR DISTRICT.

¶47

SRI SRINIVASA S/O GOVINDA KARVI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT MALLERA BETTA GANGOLLI, KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶48

THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY UNIVERSAL SAMPO GENERAL ASSURANCE CO. LTD., 3RD FLOOR, KVV SAMRAT 217/A, 3RD MAIN, OUTER RING ROAD KASTURINAGARA, BANGALORE-560043.

¶49

ULLAS B KARANTH PLOT NO.66, SAGAR SOCIETY DONA PAULA, NORTH GOA GOA-403002.

¶50

SRI R UMESH

¶51

S/O R.M.RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT ASHAS NILAYA 4TH CROSS, NANDINI BADAVANE ALKOLA, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶52

THE MANAGER UNIVERSAL SAMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

¶53

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶54

OPPOSITE TO VINAYAKA TALKIES B.H.ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577201

¶55

…RESPONDENTS

¶56

(BY SRI.S V HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & 6: NOTICE TO R2 & R4 IS D/W V/O DATED:09.11.2023: NOTICE TO R1 & 5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶57

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 06.09.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.428/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT-VI, SHIVAMOGGA, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶58

IN MFA 1812/2020

¶59

BETWEEN:

¶60

SRI R UMESH S/O R.M.RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT ASHAS NILAYA 4TH CROSS, NANDINI BADAVANE ALKOLA, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶61

…APPELLANT

¶62

(BY SRI. M V MAHESWARAPPA., ADVOCATE)

¶63

AND:

¶64

SRI PRASAD B BANAVALIKAR S/O BOMMAIAH BANAVALIKAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT BELEKERE, KARVIVADA ANKOLA,KARWAR DISTRICT.

¶65

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶66

SRI SRINIVASA S/O GOVINDA KARVI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT MALLERA BETTA GANGOLLI, KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶67

THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY UNIVERSAL SAMPO GENERAL ASSURANCE CO. LTD., 3RD FLOOR, KVV SAMRAT 217/A, 3RD MAIN, OUTER RING ROAD KASTURINAGARA, BANGALORE-560043.

¶68

ULLAS B KARANTH PLOT NO.66, SAGAR SOCIETY DONA PAULA, NORTH GOA GOA-403002.

¶69

SRI R UMESH S/O R.M.RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT ASHAS NILAYA 4TH CROSS, NANDINI BADAVANE ALKOLA, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶70

THE MANAGER UNIVERSAL SAMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. OPPOSITE TO VINAYAKA TALKIES B.H.ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577201

¶71

…RESPONDENTS

¶72

(BY SRI.S V HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & 6: NOTICE TO R1, 2, 4 & 5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶73

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 06.09.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.423/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE

¶74

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶75

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT-VI, SHIVAMOGGA, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶76

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶77

JUDGMENT

¶78

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 claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 06.09.2019 passed by the MACT, Shivamogga in MVC Nos.386/2016, 428/2016 and 423/2016.

¶79

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly

¶80

stated are that on 26.10.2015 at about 11.30 p.m., the deceased Anasuya Bai and her family members left for Sigandur, Kollur, Murudeshwara and Gokarna on a family trip. They have boarded tempo trax bearing Registration No.KA-14/A-7829 at Gadikoppa, Shivamogga and respondent No.5-Umesh was driving the said vehicle in a moderate speed by observing the traffic rules. On

¶81

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶82

27.10.2015, after finishing darshan at Sigandur and Kollur at 10.30 a.m., they were proceeding towards Gokarna. While they were traveling on NH-66 at Handigon, Kumta Taluk, at that time, the driver of lorry bearing Registration No.GA-01/T-7744 came in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction towards Honnavara and dashed against motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-47/K-7784 and then Tempo Trax and toppled down. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased-Anasuya Bai in MVC No.386/2016 sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries and claimants in MVC Nos.423/2016 and 428/2016 sustained grievous injuries and were hospitalized.

¶83

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest and seeking compensation for injuries sustained by the claimants. It was pleaded that they spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance charges, etc. It was further pleaded that the

¶84

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶85

accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶86

On service of summons, the respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 appeared through counsel and respondent Nos.3 and 6 filed written statement and respondent No.5 has filed separate written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. The age, occupation and income of the deceased and claimants are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petitions.

¶87

The respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and hence was placed ex-parte.

¶88

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidences. The claimants, in order to prove their case

¶89

NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶90

10 -

¶91

in MVC No.386/2016, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1, in MVC No.428/2016, examined claimant herself as PW-7 and in MVC No.423/2016, examined claimant himself as PW-3 and Dr. Nishanth A was examined as CW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P132 and Ex.C1 to Ex.6(a). On behalf of respondents, two witnesses were examined as RW-1 and RW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. 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 deceased-Anasuya Bai in MVC No.386/2016 sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries and claimants in MVC Nos.423/2016 and 428/2016 sustained grievous injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants in MVC No.386/2016 are entitled to a compensation of Rs.50,000/-, claimant in MVC No.423/2016 is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- and claimant in MVC No.428/2016 is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶92

11 -

¶93

NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶94

and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶95

IN MFA NO.1813/2020 (MVC NO.386/2016)

¶96

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

¶97

a) Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 65 years at the time of the accident and she was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by working as helper at Shanthi Nikethan Charitable Society, Gadikoppa, Shivamogga. The claimants are entirely depending upon the income of the deceased. But the Tribunal has failed to grant compensation towards ‘loss of dependency’.

¶98

b) Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -

¶99

v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], the

¶100

12 -

¶101

NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶102

claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’.

¶103

c) Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. –VNANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782] , each of the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

¶104

d) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.

¶105

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

¶106

a) Firstly, at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 65 years. The claimants are major sons and married daughters and they are not depending upon the income of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal considering the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the

¶107

13 - NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶108

case of SMT.MANJURI BERA vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.

¶109

LTD. reported in AIR.CSC/2007-1474 has rightly granted a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and there is no error in the judgment passed by the Tribunal.

¶110

b) Secondly, since the claimants are major sons and married daughters, they are also not entitled any compensation under the head of ‘love and affection’ and ‘consortium’.

¶111

c) Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶112

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

¶113

It is not in dispute that Anusuya Bai died in the road traffic accident occurred on 26.10.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶114

14 -

¶115

NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶116

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by working as helper at Shanthi Nikethan Charitable Society, Gadikoppa, Shivamogga. Considering the same, I am of the opinion that the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.5,000/-. Since the claimants are major sons and married daughters, it is appropriate to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.2,500/-. The deceased was aged about 65 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘7’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.2,10,000/(Rs.2,500127) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶117

In addition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’.

¶118

NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶119

15 -

¶120

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in

¶121

the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), since the claimants are sons and daughters of the deceased, they are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of parental consortium’.

¶122

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:

¶123

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	2,10,000
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of Parental consortium	2,00,000
Total	4,40,000

¶124

16 - NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶125

IN MFA NO.1812/2020 (MVC NO.423/2016)

¶126

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

¶127

a) Firstly, the claimant has examined the doctor as CW-

¶128

The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered 11% permanent physical impairment in his right upper limb. But the Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation under the head of ‘loss of future income’.

¶129

b) Secondly, 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 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.

¶130

NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶131

17 -

¶132

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

¶133

a) Firstly, injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. Even though the doctor has assessed 11% permanent physical impairment in his right upper limb, the said disability is not come in the way of claimant to do his day to day work. Therefore, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶134

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

¶135

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 26.10.2015

¶136

NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶137

18 -

¶138

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

¶139

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.10,000/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 2015, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.9,000/- p.m.

¶140

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained

¶141

10 degree loss in range of motition of right shoulder abduction, loss of sensation over the skin grafting site, he has muscle wasting in his right arm and difficulty in lifting heavy weights. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered 11% permanent physical impairment in his right upper limb. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, I am of the opinion

¶142

19 - NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶143

that the whole body disability is assessed at 4%. The claimant is aged about 35 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.69,120/- (Rs.9,0001216*4%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶144

The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of

¶145

2 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.18,000/- (Rs.9,000*2 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶146

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered 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, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head

¶147

NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶148

20 -

¶149

of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- and claimant is also entitled for the compensation of

¶150

Rs.25,000/- under the head of 'loss of amenities'.

¶151

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

¶152

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:

¶153

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	20,000	30,000
Medical expenses	60,000	60,000
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	20,000	20,000
Loss of income during laid up period	15,000	18,000
Loss of amenities	0	25,000

¶154

21 -

¶155

NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶156

Loss of future income	0	69,120
Total	1,15,000	2,22,120

¶157

IN MFA NO.1770/2020 (MVC NO.428/2016)

¶158

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

¶159

a) Firstly, the claimant has examined the doctor as CW-1. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered 22% in her right lower limb. But the Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation under the head of ‘loss of future income’.

¶160

b) Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. She was treated as inpatient for a period of 12 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, she was not in a position to discharge her regular work. She 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

¶161

22 - NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶162

sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower

¶163

side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶164

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

¶165

a) Firstly, injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. Even though the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered 22% in her right lower limb, the said disability is not come in the way of claimant to do her day to day work. Therefore, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶166

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

¶167

23 - NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶168

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 26.10.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶169

The claimant claims that she was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by working as Cook in San Jose School, Gadikoppa, Sagar Road, Shivamogga. He has not produced any documents to prove her 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 2015, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.9,000/- p.m.

¶170

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained multiple laceration and injuries to the right parietal region, fracture of clavicle and haemorrhage of right frontal. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered 22% in her right lower limb. Therefore, taking

¶171

24 -

¶172

NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶173

into consideration the deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, I am of the opinion that the whole body disability is assessed at 8%. The claimant is aged about 38 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘15’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,29,600/- (Rs.9,0001215*8%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶174

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.18,000/- (Rs.9,000*2 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶175

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. She was treated as inpatient for more than 11 days in the hospital. She has suffered lot of pain during treatment and she has

¶176

to suffer with the disability stated by the doctor

¶177

25 - NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶178

throughout her life. Considering the same, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- .

¶179

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

¶180

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:

¶181

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	30,000	40,000
Medical expenses	75,000	75,000
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	30,000	30,000
Loss of income during	0	18,000

¶182

26 -

¶183

NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶184

laid up period
Loss of amenities	30,000	40,000
Loss of future income	0	1,29,600
Total	1,65,000	3,32,600

¶185

In the result, I pass the following order:

¶186

ORDER

¶187

a) The appeals are allowed in part .

¶188

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. c) The claimants in MFA No.1813/2020 (MVC No.386/2016 are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,40,000/- as against Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶189

d) The claimant in MFA No.1812/2020 (MVC No.423/2016 is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,22,120/- .

¶190

e) The claimant in MFA No.1770/2020 (MVC

¶191

No.428/2016 are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,32,600/- as against Rs.1,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶192

27 - NC: 2023:KHC:40194 MFA No. 1813 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1770 of 2020 MFA No. 1812 of 2020

¶193

f) 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 six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶194

Sd/JUDGE

¶195

HA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 40

Sri Ganesha v. Sri Prasad B Banavalikar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ganesha v. Sri Prasad B Banavalikar

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

Nagamani Vs Prashanth

Smt. Gangamma Vs Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Somegowda Vs M.R. Lokeshaiah

Smt Sakamma Vs the Branch Manager

Shivakumar M Vs Munirathnamma

Smt Anu M Vs United India Ins. Co.Ltd.