Partly allowed

Sri Thammaiahgowda v. Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2023MFA/2542/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award for motor vehicle accident compensation, the High Court allowed the appeal in part. The court reassessed the loss of earning during the laid-up period and awarded additional compensation for loss of amenities in life, enhancing the total award by Rs. 40,000 along with interest.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed in part; compensation enhanced by Rs. 40,000 with interest at 6% p.a.; respondent directed to deposit the amount.

Sri Thammaiahgowda Vs Divisional Controller — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:23185 MFA No. 2542 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2542 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI THAMMAIAHGOWDA, S/O SEERIPUTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A NENEKATTE VILLAGE, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 313.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI S N GIREESHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MANJUNATH N D, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT [PH])

¶12

AND:

¶13

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,

¶14

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

¶15

KSRTC,

¶16

CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 313.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI T PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.69/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHAMARAJANAGAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC:23185 MFA No. 2542 of 2017

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.

¶25

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chamarajanagar in MVC.No.69/2013, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal.

¶26

The petitioner contends that on 16.03.2013 at about 01.30 p.m., the petitioner and another person were transporting turmeric in an auto rickshaw and the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-09/F-4613 dashed against the said auto rickshaw resulting in injuries to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner took first aid treatment at General Hospital, Gundlupet and then he was admitted to Bhanavi Hospital, Mysuru. The petitioner contended that he had suffered the injuries in the said accident and therefore, the respondent-KSRTC is liable to pay to the petitioner.

¶27

On issuance of notice by the Tribunal, the respondent-KSRTC appeared through its counsel and filed the objection statement contending that the owner and the insurer

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:23185 MFA No. 2542 of 2017

¶29

of the auto rickshaw are also necessary parties to the petition and denied the actionable negligence that could be fastened upon the driver of the bus. It has termed the compensation claimed as highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable.

¶30

On the basis of pleadings, the appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal and the petitioner was examined as PW.1, the Doctor who assessed his disability as PW.2. Exs.C1 to 8 and another document as Ex.P1 were marked in evidence. After hearing the arguments by both the sides, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,66,800/- under different heads as below:

¶31

PARTICULARS	AMOUNT (IN RS.)
Expenses relating to treatment and hospitalization and medicines	1,47,800/-
Pain and agony	90,000/-
Nourishment food and attendant charges	10,000/-
Loss of earning during the period of treatment	14,000/-
Conveyance charges	5,000/-
TOTAL	2,66,800/-

¶32

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed

¶33

by the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal.

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:23185 MFA No. 2542 of 2017

¶35

On issuance of notice, the respondent-KSRTC

¶36

appeared through its counsel before this Court. The Tribunal records have been secured and arguments by both the sides are heard.

¶37

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though PW.2 had stated that there is a disability of 25% to the whole body, the Tribunal has failed to consider the same and the petitioner being an agriculturist and turmeric grower has suffered the permanent disability. It is submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the different heads are also on the lower side and there is a need to reassess the compensation.

¶38

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent submits that adequate compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal and though the compensation under the head of 'future loss of income' has not been awarded, sufficient compensation has been awarded under the head of 'pain and suffering'. Therefore, he defends the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:23185 MFA No. 2542 of 2017

¶40

Perusal of the Wound Certificate issued at Ex.C5 discloses that the petitioner had suffered lacerated wound over the right side of the cheek, lacerated wound over the back of the head, abrasion over the back of the base of right index finger, laceration on the right half of the lower aspect of the tongue and fracture of the frontal bone with the cerebral edema. The case sheet produced at Ex.P1 and the discharge summary mentioned therein discloses that the petitioner is inpatient only for two days i.e., 16.03.2013 to 18.03.2013 and he was discharged on request.

¶41

The evidence of CW.1, who was examined on commission by the Tribunal show that he is professor and HOD and Neuro Department of JSS Hospital, Mysuru. He states that there was hemorrhagic contusion on the temporal region, diffuse cerebral edema and undisplaced fracture on the left side. Ultimately, he comes to the conclusion that there is a disability to the extent of 25% to the whole body. The nature of the disability as explained by him show that there is reduction of the higher mental functions, giddiness, imbalance in walking and on prolonged standing. He also states that there is difficulty in working at night time and reduced memory and

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:23185 MFA No. 2542 of 2017

¶43

poor concentration. The Tribunal has discussed the disabilities suffered by the petitioner in detail at paragraph 26 of the judgment. It has come to the conclusion that 25% disability as stated by the CW.1, cannot be a functional disability and has held that there is no functional disability.

¶44

It is evident from the records of the petitioner that he had got himself discharged from the hospital at request. Therefore, the advise to the petitioner on discharge is not available on record. Even after a thorough perusal of the medical records which are available before this Court, it is not possible to hold that the petitioner had suffered any permanent neurological deficit and as such, there is any permanent functional disability. There is no reason to differ with the opinion expressed by the Tribunal.

¶45

So far as the income is concerned, the Tribunal has

¶46

held that the petitioner is having the notional income of Rs.7,000/-. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority prescribed a notional income of Rs.8,000/- for the year 2013 for the purpose of settlement of the disputes before the Lok-Adalat. In umpteen number of

¶47

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:23185 MFA No. 2542 of 2017

¶48

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. Therefore, the notional income of the petitioner has to be considered at Rs.8,000/- per month.

¶49

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/under the head of 'pain and suffering', which is adequate and no enhancement is required. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of 'food, nourishment and attendant charges' and the said compensation is also adequate as the petitioner was inpatient only for a period of two days.

¶50

So far as the 'loss of earning during the laid up period' is concerned, the Tribunal has considered Rs.14,000/by holding that he was unable to resume his work for two months. In the considered opinion of this Court, the head injury requires a little longer time to resume his work and therefore, the same is reassessed at Rs.24,000/- (Rs.8,000 X 3).

¶51

The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of 'loss of amenities in life'. When the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of 'future

¶52

¶53

NC: 2023:KHC:23185 MFA No. 2542 of 2017

¶54

loss of income', 'loss of amenities in life' need to compensate such difficulties that could be faced by the petitioner in his rest of the life. Hence, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- under this head.

¶55

There is no need for enhancement of the compensation under the other heads i.e., 'medical expenses' and 'conveyance charges'.

¶56

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the modified compensation under different heads as below:

¶57

PARTICULARS	AMOUNT (IN RS.)
Expenses relating to treatment and hospitalization and medicines	1,47,800/-
Pain and agony	90,000/-
Nourishment food and attendant charges	10,000/-
Loss of earningduringlaid up period	24,000/-
Conveyance charges	5,000/-
Loss of amenities in life	30,000/-
TOTAL	3,06,800/-
Less awarded by Tribunal	2,66,800/-
Enhancement	_________ 40,000/-

¶58

¶59

NC: 2023:KHC:23185 MFA No. 2542 of 2017

¶60

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for enhanced

¶61

compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶64

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by awarding a sum of Rs.40,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit.

¶65

(iii) The respondent-Insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

¶66

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

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

NR/-

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 88

Sri Thammaiahgowda v. Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Thammaiahgowda v. Divisional Controller

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

Smt Anusuyamma Vs the Managing Director

Vijayaraj Urs Vs the Managing Director Bmtc

Master Yuvaraj D S Vs P Junu Ganapathi

Sri Suresh K Vs Sri Lal Sab

Sri Vasu Vs Hoovinahaklu Estate

Ismail Vs Sri. Srinivasa