Partly allowed

Sri G Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Ganapathi v. M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC7 Dec 2023MFA/939/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court heard a first appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The Court found the Tribunal underestimated income and disability. It enhanced compensation for loss of future income, pain and sufferings, and lost income during the laid-up period, modifying the total award to Rs.6,62,410.

What did the court decide?

Compulsory allowance of the appeal; modification of the Tribunal's award increasing total compensation to Rs.6,62,410; directive to deposit amount with interest.

Sri G Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Ganapathi Vs M/S United… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:44419 MFA No. 939 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 939 OF 2021 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI G RAJ KUMAR @ RAJ KUMAR GANAPATHI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT NO.12-380, R G COLONY RAJIV NAGAR, TIRUPATI CHITTOR CHITTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH PIN-517501.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K T., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD MOTOR CLAIMS HUB NO.18, 6TH FLOOR NEAR KRUSHI BHAVAN HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-560001 BY ITS MANAGER.

¶14

MRS SHASHIKALA M S W/O MADHU M K NO.17, RANGAPPA BUILDING 11TH CORSS, YAMALUR BENGALURU-560037.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. MANJULA N TEJASWI., ADVOCATE FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 04.07.2022)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:44419 MFA No. 939 of 2021

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1942/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-21), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR 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 04.11.2019 passed by the XVII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, MACT, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (SCCH-21) (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.1942/2019.

¶22

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 05.03.2019 at about 1.30 p.m., the claimant was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-03/CE-0648 near Bhattarahalli, Whitecity Layout, Seegehalli road junction, Bengaluru. At that time, a car bearing registration No.KA-03/AC-0866 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:44419 MFA No. 939 of 2021

¶24

and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant fell down, 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 driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶26

On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and

¶27

2 appeared through counsel and respondent No.1 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 driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving licence as on the date of the

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:44419 MFA No. 939 of 2021

¶29

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 exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶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.Nagaraj as PW2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined and got exhibited 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.4,76,250/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:44419 MFA No. 939 of 2021

¶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.30,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as only Rs.10,000/- per month.

¶36

(ii) Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 43% to right lower limb and 15% to whole body. But the

¶37

Tribunal has erred in taking the whole body disability at only 12%.

¶38

(iii) Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 3 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

¶39

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:44419 MFA No. 939 of 2021

¶40

sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower

¶41

side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶42

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

¶43

(i) Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, he has not produced any documents to establish his income. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.

¶44

(ii) Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 43% to left lower limb and 15% to whole body. The Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 12%.

¶45

(iii) Thirdly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. He was inpatient for only 3 days. Considering the evidence of the doctor and the injuries suffered by the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

¶46

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:44419 MFA No. 939 of 2021

¶47

(iv) Fourthly, in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the interest granted by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% p.a. is on the higher side and the same has to be reduced to 6% p.a. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶48

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

¶49

It is not in dispute that the claimant suffered injuries in the accident occurred on 05.03.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No.KA-03/AC-0866 by its driver.

¶50

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 Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since the accident has taken place in the year 2019, the notional

¶51

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:44419 MFA No. 939 of 2021

¶52

income has to be taken at Rs.14,000/- p.m. Due to the accident the claimant has suffered open fracture of right tibia and other injuries. The claimant was inpatient for 3 days. PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 43% to right lower limb and 15% to whole body. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor, PW-2 and injuries suffered by the claimant, the whole body disability is taken at 14%. The claimant was aged about 23 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.4,23,360/- (Rs.14,0001218*14%) on account of 'loss of future income'. 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.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and in view of rise in the monthly income from Rs.10,000/- to

¶53

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:44419 MFA No. 939 of 2021

¶54

Rs.14,000/- the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.42,000/(Rs.14,000*3) in place of Rs.30,000/awarded by the Tribunal under the head 'loss of income during laid-up period'. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶55

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following

¶56

compensation:

¶57

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	30,000	40,000
Medical expenses	92,050	92,050
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	5,000	5,000
Loss of income during laid up period	30,000	42,000
Loss of amenities	35,000	35,000
Loss of future income	2,59,200	4,23,360
Future medical expenses	25,000	25,000
Total	4,76,250	6,62,410

¶58

10 -

¶59

NC: 2023:KHC:44419 MFA No. 939 of 2021

¶60

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

¶61

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶62

(ii) The judgment of the claims Tribunal is modified. The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,62,410/- in place of Rs.4,76,250/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶63

(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest 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 excluding interest for the compensation awarded under the head of 'future medical expenses'.

¶64

(iv) The enhanced compensation carries interest @ 6% p.a.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

¶67

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 55

Sri G Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Ganapathi v. M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Ganapathi v. M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

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

Sri Sunil Kumar C Vs the Manager Hdfc Ergo Insurance Co. Ltd.

Venkatesh E Vs the Managing Director Bmtc

Smt R Ambika Vs the Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Mr Sriram Vs the Manager

Smt. Rukmini C. M. Vs the Manager

Sri S Munegowda Vs M/S Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.