Partly allowed

Sri. P Prashanth v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC14 Dec 2023MFA/4261/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an MFA against an award in a motor vehicle accident case. The High Court enhanced the compensation from ₹2,25,600 to ₹2,70,600 by increasing awards under heads of pain, suffering, and future medical expenses, and applied a 70% reduction for contributory negligence.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation awarded from ₹2,25,600 to ₹2,70,600 (70% of gross amount ₹1,89,420); interest at 6% p.a.; deposit by insurance company within eight weeks.

Sri. P Prashanth Vs the Managing Director — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:47015 MFA No. 4261 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4261 OF 2019 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.P.PRASHANTH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O PRAGASAM, R/AT NO.346, 6TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, HMT LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU - 560 073.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI.P.SURESH.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC DIVISION, Digitally CENTRAL OFFICE, signed by JAI SHANTHINAGR, K.H.ROAD, JYOTHI J BENGALURU - 560 027, Location: HIGH (R.C.OWNER & INTERNAL INSURER OF THE KSRTC COURT OF BUS BEARING REG. NO.KA-18-P-683) KARNATAKA

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI.ARUNA BHAT AND SRI.G.LAKSHMEESH RAO., ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.01.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.4175/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-16),

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:47015 MFA No. 4261 of 2019

¶17

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This is an appeal filed by the claimant aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C No.4175/2017, dated 11.01.2019, on the file of the X Addl. Judge, Court of small causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-16). The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident.

¶20

The case of the claimant is that on 04.06.2017 at

¶21

about 4.00 p.m., when the claimant was proceeding in a motorcycle, at that time, a KSRTC bus being driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. As the result he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was taken to

¶22

the hospital and was treated as an inpatient. According to the claimant, he was working as a Graphic designer in Coffee Day and earning an amount of Rs.40,000/- per

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:47015 MFA No. 4261 of 2019

¶24

month. The Court below had granted the compensation

¶25

under different heads as below :

¶26

Sl.No.	Heads	Amount
1.	Pain and sufferings	Rs.40,000/-
2.	Attendant charges, extra nutritious food and conveyance expenses	Rs.6,000/-
3.	Loss of income during laid up period	Rs.27,000/-
4.	Medical expenses	Rs.2,600/-
5.	Loss of future income due to permanent disability	Nil
6.	Towards physical disablement	Rs.80,000/-
7.	Loss of future amenities and happiness	Rs.50,000/-
8.	Future medical expenses	Rs.20,000/-
	Total	Rs.2,25,600/-

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:47015 MFA No. 4261 of 2019

¶29

According to the Doctor, he had sustained 47% disability to the limb and 16.66% disability to the whole body. The Court below had granted an amount of Rs.40,000/- under the head of pain and suffering, towards attendant charges, extra nourishment, food and conveyance an amount of Rs.6,000/-, towards loss of income during the laid up period, considering the income at Rs.9,000/- had granted an amount of Rs.21,000/- and medical expenses an amount of Rs.2,600/-. When it comes to loss of future income due to permanent disability, the Court below had considered the evidence of the doctor, who had deposed about the disability as the fractures were united, Court felt that such conclusion by the Doctor and the disability is on the higher side. Court observed that he has been working even after the accident which shows that injuries or the disabilities had no impact on his future earning and accordingly granted an amount

¶30

of Rs.80,000/- under the head of physical disability and an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities . Doctor had opined that for the future

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:47015 MFA No. 4261 of 2019

¶33

medical expenses, the claimants requires an amount of Rs.30,000/-, Court had granted an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Altogether, a compensation of an amount of Rs.2,25,600/- was awarded by the Tribunal. When it comes to the negligence, Court below has held that both the KSRTC bus and the claimant had moved without stopping and without following the traffic rules and have contributed to the accident. The contributory negligence was apportioned at 30% on the claimant and 70% on

¶34

the driver of the KSRTC bus.

¶35

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Court below ought not to have held that there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. He submits that because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus the accident had taken place and

¶36

the Court below without any basis apportioned the contributory negligence at 30% on the claimant which is on the higher side. He submits that, when the doctor had opined that the claimant had sustained disability to an

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:47015 MFA No. 4261 of 2019

¶39

extent of 15.66% to the whole body, Court below considering it at 12% is on the lower side and it ought to have applied appropriate multiplier and granted the compensation towards loss of future income. It is submitted that the amounts that were granted under the heads of permanent disability the physical disablement and loss of amenities are also on the lower side. He submits that under the head of attendant charges, extra nourishment, food and conveyance and the future medical expenses also the amounts that were granted by the Tribunal are not reasonable. Hence, he submits that the compensation that was awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable.

¶40

The learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC submits that considering the evidence on record, the Court below had rightly apportioned the contributory negligent at 30% on the claimant and 70% on the driver of the KSRTC bus. He submits that even the compensation that was awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and no

¶41

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:47015 MFA No. 4261 of 2019

¶42

grounds are made out for enhancement of the

¶43

compensation.

¶44

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. As per Ex.P6 the claimant had sustained contusion to the right thigh with fracture of femur, 5x1 cm, cut lacerated wound over left side of eyebrow and 2x0.5 cm., cut lacerated injury over left forehead. According to the doctor, injury No.1 is grievous in nature and injury Nos.2 and 3 are simple in nature. Under the head of pain and suffering , this Court is granting an amount of Rs.50,000/-, towards Attendant, extra nourishment and conveyance the compensation awarded by the Court below is meager, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.15,000/-. Coming to the loss of income during the laid period the Court below had considered Rs.9,000/- as the income of the claimant. As this is an accident of the year 2017 this Court is inclined to take the income of the claimant, at Rs.11,000/- per month and for three months it comes to

¶45

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:47015 MFA No. 4261 of 2019

¶46

Rs.33,000 /-, towards medical expenses , basing on the

¶47

evidence of the doctor, an amount of Rs.2,600/- is granted and this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the same. Then coming to the disability the Court below had rightly considered the evidence of the doctor and the fact that he is continuing the job and rightly not granted the compensation under the head of loss of future income. The Court below had granted an amount of Rs.80,000/- and an amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head of disability and loss of amenities which is a reasonable compensation and this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the same. When it comes to the future medical expenses , the doctor had opined that the claimant requires an amount of Rs.30,000/-, but the Court below had awarded only an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Considering the evidence of the doctor and that the accident is of the year 2017, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards future medical expenses.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:47015 MFA No. 4261 of 2019

¶50

In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble

¶51

Supreme Court in the case of M.MEKALA vs. M.

¶52

MALATHI AND ANOTHER , the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses.

¶53

Accordingly the claimants are entitled for the

¶54

compensation under the following heads:-

¶55

Sl.No.	Heads	Compensation awarded
1	Pain and suffering	Rs.50,000/-
2	Medical expenses	Rs.2,600/-
3.	Loss of income during laid up period 11,000x3	Rs.33,000/-
4.	Loss of disability	Rs.80,000/-
5.	Towards food, attendant and nourishment	Rs.15,000/-
6.	Loss of future amenities	Rs.50,000/-
7.	Future medical expenses	Rs.30,000/-
8.	Legal expenses	Rs. 10,000/-
	Total	Rs.2,70,600/-

¶56

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:47015 MFA No. 4261 of 2019

¶57

Coming to the issue of contributory negligence, the Court below had rightly discussed about the

¶58

contributory negligence and the manner in which the accident had taken place. Therefore, this Court finds that said finding of the Tribunal which is based on the evidence, no interference is called for. In view of the above finding 70% of the compensation amounts comes to Rs.1,89,420/-.

¶59

Accordingly the appeal of the claimant is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,25,600/- to Rs.2,70,600/-. Out of that 70% comes

¶60

to Rs.1,89,420/-.

¶61

i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at

¶62

6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶63

ii) The respondent - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the

¶64

judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is

¶65

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:47015 MFA No. 4261 of 2019

¶66

entitled to withdraw the entire amount without

¶67

furnishing any security.

¶68

iii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶69

iv) No costs.

¶70

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶71

closed.

¶72

SD/JUDGE

¶73

RMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75

Sri. P Prashanth v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. P Prashanth v. the Managing Director

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

Varalakshmi Vs Sameer

M Somashekar Vs S Nasir

Prasanna Vs the Manager

Mr. Ibrahim Vs the Manaing Director

Mr. Parveez Ahmed Vs the Managing Director

Sri Shekar B v Vs Sri . Ramakrishnan