Partly allowed

Puneeth Kumar v. Madhu

Karnataka HC17 Jan 2024MFA/1397/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this First Appeaal, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to a motor accident claimant for loss of future income, amenities, and future medical expenses, relying on the Legal Services Authority chart due to lack of proof of actual income.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 4,05,400/- covering loss of future income, medical expenses, lost earnings, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and future medical costs.

Puneeth Kumar Vs Madhu — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:2314 MFA No. 1397 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1397 OF 2021 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PUNEETH KUMAR

¶9

S/O B.V.KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO.1003, E AND F BLOCK, 8^TH CROSS, RAMAKRISHNANAGAR, MYSURU-570 022.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI SHANTHARAJ K.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MADHU S/O SUSHEELA MAJOR, R/AT THAI PARAMBATH HOUSE, CHENDAYAD POST PANOOR VIA THALASSERY KANNUR DISTRICT-670 101.

¶14

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD BY ITS MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE-II, NO.1, SRI SRINIVASA PLAZA, 1^ST FLOOR, 5^TH STAGE, ADICHUNCHANAGIRI ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU-570 005.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 17.01.2024., SRI.C.SHANKAR REDDY.,ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:2314 MFA No. 1397 of 2021

¶21

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.05.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO. 368/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, ADDITIONAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU, AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is preferred by the appellant - claimant challenging the judgment & award dated 31^st May 2018 passed in MVC No.368/2015 by the Court of the Judge, Additional Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru ('the Tribunal' for short). This appeal is founded on the premises of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶25

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶26

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶27

On 22.4.2014 at about 11.15 a.m, the claimant

¶28

was riding his motorbike bearing Registration No.KA-10-R0615 and was proceeding near Sunanda Factory on KRS

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:2314 MFA No. 1397 of 2021

¶31

road. At that time, all of a sudden a Omni car bearing Registration No.KL-58-A-5210 driven by its driver in a rash

¶32

and negligent manner came in a high speed from the opposite side and took sudden right turn without any indication and hit the vehicle of the claimant and caused occurrence of the accident. Due to the impact of the accident, the claimant fell down, sustained fracture of the right femur and other injuries all over his body. He was immediately shifted to Vikram Jeev hospital, Mysuru, where he took first aid treatment and thereafter shifted to

¶33

Kamakshi hospital, Mysuru, wherein he was in-patient for 20 days and underwent multiple operations for fixing implants. It is stated that the claimant expended Rs.2,50,000/- for medical treatment and other expenses and it is alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash

¶34

and negligent driving by the driver of the omni car. On the basis of the complaint lodged, the FIR came to be registered against the driver of the offending vehicle in Crime No.113/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. It is stated that prior to

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:2314 MFA No. 1397 of 2021

¶37

the occurrence of the accident, the claimant was hale and healthy and studying in II year B.Sc., and was doing part time employment earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. Due to the injuries suffered in the accident, the claimant has become disabled and suffered physical disability leading to loss of future earning capacity. Hence, the claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

¶38

3.1 The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 appeared and

¶39

filed their respective written statements before the Tribunal. Inspite of affording sufficient opportunity, the claimant has not taken steps against Respondent No.1 and hence claim petition as against Respondent No.1 came to be dismissed. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 denied the claim of the claimant including age, avocation and income and the negligence attributed against the driver of the Omni car. It is the case of Respondent No.2 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorbike by the claimant rather than driver of the omni car and accordingly sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:2314 MFA No. 1397 of 2021

¶42

3.2 On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal

¶43

framed relevant issues for consideration.

¶44

3.3 In order to substantiate the issues and establish the case, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and doctor as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. On the other hand, Respondent No.3 examined the Senior Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company as RW.1 and got marked the insurance policy as Ex.R1.

¶45

3.4 On the basis of the materials on record, both

¶46

oral and documentary, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation off Rs.2,31,500/- with interest at 9% per annum.

¶47

3.5 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement.

¶48

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has not assessed the income of the claimant in the proper perspective, as a result the compensation awarded under the head of 'loss of future income' is on the lower side and

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:2314 MFA No. 1397 of 2021

¶51

so also under the other heads, the Tribunal has awarded meager compensation contrary to the material evidence. He also contended that towards future medical expenses, the Tribunal has failed to award any compensation. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation.

¶52

Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent - Insurance Company vehemently contends that the there is no error or illegality in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal as the same is on the basis of the materials placed on record. Though the claimant stated that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, admittedly there is no proof of income placed before the

¶53

Court. However, the Tribunal taken the income at Rs.5,000/per month, which does not call for interference. He further contends that under the other heads, the Tribunal awarded just and reasonable compensation and therefore he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶54

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:2314 MFA No. 1397 of 2021

¶55

I have given my thoughtful consideration to

¶56

the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶57

It is not in dispute that on 22.4.2014 while the claimant was riding his motorbike, the Maruti Omni car driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in a high speed from the opposite side and took sudden right turn without any indication and hit the vehicle of the claimant and caused occurrence of the accident. Due to the impact of the accident, the claimant fell down, sustained fracture of the right femur and other injuries all over his body. In order to establish this aspect, the claimant got produced Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. Out of them, Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 are the Police records which go to show that FIR is registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and the charge sheet has been laid, which is not disputed or controverted by the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, the order of the Tribunal with regard to negligence is sustainable.

¶58

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:2314 MFA No. 1397 of 2021

¶59

Now coming to the age, avocation and income

¶60

of the claimant, it is stated that as on the date of the accident, the claimant was aged 19 years and was a student earning Rs.6,000/- per month as a part time employee. However, the Tribunal assessed the income to be Rs.5,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the income assessed by

¶61

the Tribunal is on the other side and it requires enhancement in view of the Legal Services Authority chart, which prescribes the income to be Rs.8,500/- per month

¶62

for the accident of the year 2014. On the contrary, learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently contends that Legal Services Authority chart is applicable

¶63

in a case where there is absolutely no proof of income and there is no admission with regard to the income by the claimant. In the present case, the claimant himself has admitted the income to be Rs.6,000/- per month. Hence,

¶64

the Legal Services Authority chart cannot be applicable in the present facts of the case. The contention taken by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company cannot be

¶65

¶66

NC: 2024:KHC:2314 MFA No. 1397 of 2021

¶67

accepted. In the present case, no proof of income is produced except the statement by the claimant that he was part time employee earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Hence, this Court will have to revert to the Legal Services Authority chart which prescribes the notional income to be Rs.8,500/- per month for the accident of the year 2014.

¶68

The doctor/PW.2, who treated the claimant assessed the permanent disability of the claimant to be 15% and stated that the claimant suffered fracture of shaft femur with displacement and was on ICU for head injury treatment and was operated for femur with inter locking nail femur. The Tribunal on the basis of evidence of the doctor assessed the disability to be 15% which does not call for interference.

¶69

The claimant was aged 19 years and the appropriate multiplier would be '18' as contemplated in the case of National Insurance Company Limited -vs- Pranay Sethi and others (AIR 2017 SC 5157), which is rightly adopted by the Tribunal. The same does not call for interference.

¶70

10 -

¶71

NC: 2024:KHC:2314 MFA No. 1397 of 2021

¶72

In view of the above, the loss of future income would be Rs.2,75,400/- (Rs.8500 x 12 x 18 x 15%) as against Rs.1,62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶73

Towards medical expenses and nourishment, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.14,500/based on the actual bills produced by the claimant. The same does not call for interference.

¶74

Towards loss of income during laid up period, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/-, which is on the lower side. In view of this Court enhancing the income from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,500/- per month and considering the fact that atleast 3 months period would be required for recuperation to do normal day to day activities, Rs.25,500/- (Rs.8,500 x 3) is awarded under this head as against Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶75

Towards injury, pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/-. This Court deems it appropriate to award an additional sum of Rs.20,000/under this head.

¶76

11 -

¶77

NC: 2024:KHC:2314 MFA No. 1397 of 2021

¶78

Towards loss of amenities of life, the Tribunal

¶79

awarded Rs.20,000/-. This Court deems it appropriate to award additional Rs.10,000/- under this head.

¶80

The Tribunal failed to award compensation

¶81

towards future medical expenses though the doctor has expressed some further treatment would be required. This Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses.

¶82

In view of the above discussion, the

¶83

appellant/claimant would be entitled to total compensation

¶84

of Rs.4,05,400/- as against Rs.2,31,500/- awarded by the

¶85

Tribunal, as mentioned in the table below:

¶86

Sl. No.	Head of compensation	Amount of compensation awarded
1	Loss of future income	Rs.2,75,400-00
2	Medical expenses and nourishment	Rs. 14,500-00
3	Loss of income during laid up period and rest	Rs. 25,500-00

¶87

12 -

¶88

NC: 2024:KHC:2314 MFA No. 1397 of 2021

¶89

4	Injury, pain and suffering	Rs. 40,000-00
5	Loss of amenities in life	Rs. 30,000-00
6	Future medical expenses	Rs. 20,000-00
	Total	Rs.4,05,400-00

¶90

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶91

O R D E R

¶92

i) The appeal is allowed in part ;

¶93

ii) The appellant/claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,05,400/- (Rupees four lakhs five thousand four hundred only) as against Rs.2,31,500/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶94

ii) The interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.2,31,500/- is left undisturbed. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However, the appellant/claimant shall not be entitled to interest for the delayed period of 324 days.

¶95

13 -

¶96

NC: 2024:KHC:2314 MFA No. 1397 of 2021

¶97

iv) The impugned judgment & award passed by the

¶98

Tribunal in MVC No.368/2015 is modified accordingly.

¶99

v) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the Tribunal shall stand intact.

¶100

vi) The compensation amount alongwith interest shall be deposited before the jurisdictional Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶101

vii) The entire compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant/claimant upon proper verification.

¶102

Sd/JUDGE

¶103

GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Puneeth Kumar v. Madhu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puneeth Kumar v. Madhu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Seema Vs Union of India

Mr.Harish H.N. @ Kumar Vs the Division Manager

Sri Srinivas T B S Vs Sri China Srinivasalu Reddy

Sri Chandra Poojari Vs Avinash

Mr Shekara Y D Vs Mr Somaraju Y S

Manoharan Vs Vinay B N