Partly allowed

Subramanya Bhat v. Dinesh Shetty

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2023MFA/2868/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Miscellaneous First Appeal challenged a Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal judgment regarding compensation for injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident. The High Court enhanced the compensation amount from approximately Rs. 3.73 lakh to Rs. 4.37 lakh by revising notional income and heads of loss.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs. 4,37,035 payable with interest; insurance company directed to deposit the amount within six weeks.

Subramanya Bhat Vs Dinesh Shetty — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:38990 MFA No. 2868 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2868 OF 2020 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SUBRAMANYA BHAT AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O MANJUNATAH BHAT R/O. H.NO.2-143, KINNAMBETTU HOUSE ALADKAM JALUVALLI POST,CHERKADI UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576101.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY KUM.SWATHI G., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

DINESH SHETTY

¶12

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O SHIVARAM SHETTY R/AT H.NO.1-14 (2), NEELAVAR BRAHMAVAR, THADEKALLU UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576101.

¶14

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD DIVISIONAL MANAGER DIVISIONAL OFFICE JEWEL PLAZA, 1ST FLOOR MARUTHI VEETHIKA UDUPI DISTRICT-576101.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.RAJENDRA HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:17.4.2023)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:38990 MFA No. 2868 of 2020

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 20.06.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 569/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

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 claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.06.2019 passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT at Udupi in MVC No.569/2017.

¶22

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 07.01.2017 at about 6.00 p.m., the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-20/V-9865 from Brahmavara towards Hebri. When he reached near Cherkady, at that time, another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-33/H-5186 being ridden by its rider at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant.

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:38990 MFA No. 2868 of 2020

¶24

As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶25

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, 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.

¶26

On service of notice, the respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. The age, avocation and income of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was pleaded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent riding of the vehicle by the claimant himself. It was further pleaded that the rider of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. It was further pleaded that the liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is

¶27

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:38990 MFA No. 2868 of 2020

¶28

exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. The respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal

¶29

inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-parte.

¶30

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-

¶31

1 and Dr.Monappa Naik as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P26. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined but got exhibited one 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.3,74,000/along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being not satisfied, this appeal has been filed.

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:38990 MFA No. 2868 of 2020

¶33

The learned counsel for the claimant has raised

¶34

the following contentions:

¶35

(i) Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as only Rs.9,000/- per month.

¶36

(ii) Secondly, due to the accident the claimant has suffered grievous injuries, he was inpatient for a period of 7 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to suffer the disability and unhappiness throughout his life. Considering the same, the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental heads are on the lower side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶37

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

¶38

(i) Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, he has not produced

¶39

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:38990 MFA No. 2868 of 2020

¶40

any documents to establish his income. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.

¶41

(ii) Secondly, the whole body disability assessed by the doctor is on the higher side. The Tribunal has erred in considering the whole body disability as 8%.

¶42

(iii) Thirdly, considering the injuries suffered by the claimant and considering the age and avocation, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶44

Perused the judgment and award and the original records.

¶45

It is not in dispute that the claimant suffered injuries in the accident occurred on 07.01.2017 due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-33/H-5186.

¶46

The claimant has not produced any evidence with regard to his income. Therefore, the notional income has to be assessed as per the guidelines issued by the

¶47

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:38990 MFA No. 2868 of 2020

¶48

Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since the accident has taken place in the year 2017, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m. Due to the accident the claimant has suffered open fracture of right femur shaft with intertrochanteric fracture. The claimant was inpatient for a period of 7 days. Considering the deposition of the doctor, PW-2 and injuries suffered by the claimant, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 8%. The claimant was aged about 58 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘9’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.95,040/- (Rs.11,000129*8%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶49

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries, he has suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to suffer with the disability and unhappiness throughout his life. Considering the same, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.40,000/-, 'loss of amenities' from

¶50

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:38990 MFA No. 2868 of 2020

¶51

Rs.20,000/- to Rs.35,000/- and 'loss of income during laid-up period' for a period of three months, i.e., Rs.33,000/- (Rs.11,000*3). The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶52

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:

¶53

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	15,000	40,000
Medical expenses	1,88,995	1,88,995
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	15,000	15,000
Loss of income during laid up period	27,000	33,000
Loss of amenities	20,000	35,000
Loss of future income	77,760	95,040
Future medical expenses	30,000	30,000
Total	3,73,755	4,37,035

¶54

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:38990 MFA No. 2868 of 2020

¶55

In view of the above, I pass the following order:

¶56

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶57

(ii) The judgment of the claims Tribunal is modified. The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,37,035/- in place of Rs.3,73,755/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶58

(iii) 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

¶59

receipt of copy of this judgment excluding interest for the compensation awarded under the head of 'future medical expenses'.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

Subramanya Bhat v. Dinesh Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subramanya Bhat v. Dinesh Shetty

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

Srinivas Vs Alumelamma

Sri. a. Gopal Vs the Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority

Smt. Chitkala a M Vs Reshma Sultana

Jayanthi Vs Keshavamurthy N

Smt Savithramma Vs P Krishnamurthy

Prakrithi Vs Rita Lobo