Allowed

Sri P G Anand v. Sri S P Belliyappa

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2023MFA/3621/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appealers challenged compensation awarded by the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal. The High Court enhanced compensation for loss of future income and loss of amenities due to inadequate notional income assessment and lack of awards for specific heads, allowing the appeal in part and modifying the award.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs. 5,75,320/-; Insurance Company directed to deposit amount with interest.

Sri P G Anand Vs Sri S P Belliyappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:39181 MFA No. 3621 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3621 OF 2022 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI P G ANAND S/O GURUSHANKARACHARI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT KALIKAMBA TEMPLE VIJAYANAGAR WARD NO.2 RAMANAGARA TOWN & DISTRICT …APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. RAJU S., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SRI S P BELLIYAPPA S/O PONNAPPA BADAGA VILLAGE MURNADU POST VIRAJPET TALUK MADIKERI DISTRICT - 571 252.

¶12

THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO. 2241/4 GIRIYAMMA SHAMBUGOWDA COMPLEX CHURCH ROAD, CHANNAPATNA - 562 160 REPTD BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER …RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI.ASHOK K N PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 03.11.2023)

¶14

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THEJUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.01.2022 IN

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:39181 MFA No. 3621 of 2022

¶16

MVC NO.298/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

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

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

¶20

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.01.2022 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.298/2017.

¶21

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly

¶22

stated are that on 23.10.2016 at about 5 p.m., the claimant was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-42/V-1863 on the public road which runs in front of M/s.DL Bar. At that time, a car bearing registration No.KA-12/N-9733 being driven by its driver at

¶23

a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39181 MFA No. 3621 of 2022

¶25

accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶26

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 driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶27

On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statements in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

¶28

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 liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶29

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:39181 MFA No. 3621 of 2022

¶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 PW1 and Dr.Venkatram Kumar K. as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On behalf of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor got exhibited documents. 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.4,03,360/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.

¶31

The learned counsel for the claimant has raised

¶32

the following contentions:

¶33

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:39181 MFA No. 3621 of 2022

¶34

(i) Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was driver and earning Rs.25,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as only Rs.6,000/per month.

¶35

(ii) Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. 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 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for 'loss of amenities'. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶36

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

¶37

(i) Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, he has not produced any documents to establish his income. Therefore, the

¶38

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:39181 MFA No. 3621 of 2022

¶39

Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.

¶40

(ii) Secondly, 'loss of income during laid-up period' awarded by the Tribunal for a period of six months is on the higher side.

¶41

(iii) Thirdly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. Considering the evidence of the doctor and the injuries suffered by the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment and award.

¶43

It is not in dispute that the claimant suffered injuries in the accident occurred on 23.10.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No.KA-12/N-9733 by its driver.

¶44

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

¶45

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:39181 MFA No. 3621 of 2022

¶46

Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since the accident has taken place in the year 2016, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.9,500/- p.m. Due to the accident the claimant has suffered grievous injuries to right leg. Taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor, PW-2 and injuries suffered by the claimant, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 16%. The claimant was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘18’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,28,320/- (Rs.9,5001218*16%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶47

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 of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to Rs.30,000/- for 'loss of amenities' and 'loss of income during laid-up period' for a period of six months, i.e.,

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:39181 MFA No. 3621 of 2022

¶50

Rs.57,000/- (Rs.9,500*6). The compensation awarded by

¶51

the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶52

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following

¶53

compensation:

¶54

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	40,000	40,000
Medical expenses, conveyance, attendant charges, food and nourishment	1,20,000	1,20,000
Loss of income during laid up period	36,000	57,000
Loss of amenities	0	30,000
Loss of future income	2,07,360	3,28,320
Total	4,03,360	5,75,320

¶55

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

¶56

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶57

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:39181 MFA No. 3621 of 2022

¶58

(ii) The judgment of the claims Tribunal is modified. The claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.5,75,320/- in place of Rs.4,03,360/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶59

(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 receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

¶62

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23

Sri P G Anand v. Sri S P Belliyappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P G Anand v. Sri S P Belliyappa

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

Jayanthi Vs Keshavamurthy N

Subramanya Bhat Vs Dinesh Shetty

Smt Savithramma Vs P Krishnamurthy

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Nagaraju

Sri Guruprasad Vs Sri S P Belliyappa

Deju Shetty Vs Veeresh R K