Partly allowed

Sri Girish N v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2023MFA/2743/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This first appeal challenged the quantum of compensation awarded in a motor vehicle accident case. The High Court enhanced the award under heads of loss of amenities, loss of income during laid up period, and loss of future income, resulting in a total enhancement to Rs. 6,11,980.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed in part; the judgment of the Claims Tribunal was modified; total compensation enhanced to Rs. 6,11,980.

Sri Girish N Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:40788 MFA No. 2743 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2743 OF 2022 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI GIRISH N S/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT UDIPALYA VILLAGE AND POST KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560062

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. GIRIMALLAIAH., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., T P HUB, NO.9/2, 2ND FLOOR M G ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 BY ITS MANAGER.

¶14

MR SHIVAKUMAR

¶15

S/O CHIKKAVARAJARAPPA MAJOR, NO.84, THALAGATTAPURA BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU-560109

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. P B RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W V/O DATED: 16.11.2023)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.09.2021

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:40788 MFA No. 2743 of 2022

¶20

PASSED IN MVC NO.1899/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-12, BENGALURU, (SCCH-12), 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 filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.09.2021 passed by MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.1899/2020.

¶25

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 03.03.2020 at about 02.00 p.m., the claimant was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-51-HL-1338 as a pillion rider along with rider of said motor cycle and when they reached near Desiparith Udipalya, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South, at that time, the driver of the Canter Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-05/A-6663 came with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40788 MFA No. 2743 of 2022

¶27

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

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:40788 MFA No. 2743 of 2022

¶33

The respondent No.2 did not appear before the

¶34

Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed exparte.

¶35

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.Prakashappa was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. On behalf of the respondents, neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 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.5,08,880/along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:40788 MFA No. 2743 of 2022

¶37

along with interest. Being 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 doing painter work and earning Rs.18,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.12,000/- p.m.

¶40

b) Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 11 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 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶41

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:40788 MFA No. 2743 of 2022

¶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.18,000/- 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.

¶44

b) Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. 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. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶45

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

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC:40788 MFA No. 2743 of 2022

¶48

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 03.03.2020 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶49

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.18,000/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 2020, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.14,500/- p.m.

¶50

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained multiple abrasion over the face, tenderness over the abdomen and pelvic region and etc. The Tribunal considering the evidence of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 14%. The claimant is aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and multiplier

¶51

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:40788 MFA No. 2743 of 2022

¶52

applicable to his age group is ‘18.’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,38,480/- (Rs.14,5001218*14%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶53

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.43,500/- (Rs.14,500*3 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶54

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. 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 of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/- .

¶55

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:40788 MFA No. 2743 of 2022

¶56

14. Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation

¶57

awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶58

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following

¶59

compensation:

¶60

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	50,000	50,000
Medical, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	30,000	30,000
Loss of income during laid up period	36,000	43,500
Loss of amenities	30,000	50,000
Loss of future income	3,62,880	4,38,480
Total	5,08,880	6,11,980

¶61

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶64

10 -

¶65

NC: 2023:KHC:40788 MFA No. 2743 of 2022

¶66

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶67

c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,11,980/-.

¶68

d) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with 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.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

¶71

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 33

Sri Girish N v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Girish N v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

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

M E Parvathamma Vs the Inspector of Excise

Sri. Manjunatha K C Vs Smt. Geetha

Sri.S Rajashekar Murthy, Vs Sri Deva Ram

Smt Mangamma Vs the Managing Director

M.S. Sundaresh Vs Jagadish

Rajanna C Vs Divisional Controller