Partly allowed

Mr Jagadish v. the Regional Manager

Karnataka HC13 Aug 2024MFA/150/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant injured in a motorcycle-mini bus collision appealed seeking enhancement of motor accident compensation. The High Court enhanced loss of future income using 12% whole-body disability and multiplier 16, raised loss of amenities to Rs.50,000, and fixed interest at 6% p.a., awarding a total of Rs.7,80,320 against Rs.6,76,000.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.6,76,000 to Rs.7,80,320 with interest at 6% p.a., excluding future medical expenses head and the delayed period of 1035 days.

Mr Jagadish Vs the Regional Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:32361 MFA No. 150 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 150 OF 2019 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR JAGADISH S/O LATE KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.19/1, 11TH CROSS 4TH MAIN, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI BENGALURU-560079.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. RAMESHA H E.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE REGIONAL MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.2 UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-560027.

¶13

MR S RAVI S/O N C SURESH NO.1ST CROSS GOKULA EXTENSION TUMKUR-572104

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.S V SUDHAKAR REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W V/O DATED: 15.04.2021)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:32361 MFA No. 150 of 2019

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:23.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1660/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU [SCCH-18], PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.11.2015 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru in MVC No.1660/2014.

¶23

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 24.12.2013 at about 1.30 p.m., the claimant was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-02-HL-5365 along with a pillion rider on Tumkuru-

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:32361 MFA No. 150 of 2019

¶25

Kunigal road, Maralur Tank Bund, Tumkuru. When they reached in front of Narayanappa Form, at that time, the driver of the Mini Bus bearing Registration No.KA-06-C6777 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of the aforesaid 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 significant amount towards medical expenses, conveyance charges and other related costs. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶27

Upon service of notice, the respondent No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No.2, despite service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:32361 MFA No. 150 of 2019

¶29

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The claimant, in order to prove the case, examined himself as PW-1, and Dr.Krishna Prasad was examined as PW-3, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P33. On behalf of the respondents, neither examined any witness nor exhibited any doucments. 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.6,76,000/- 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, the present appeal has been filed.

¶30

The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions:

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:32361 MFA No. 150 of 2019

¶32

a) Firstly, the Tribunal erred in assuming the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.8,000/-, despite evidence showing he earned Rs.25,000/- per month by running Nandini Milk booth business.

¶33

b) Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-3. The Tribunal undervalued the claimant's whole-body disability at 20%, contradicting the evidence of the doctor that the claimant suffered 26% disability to the whole body. Due to the said disability, the claimant unable to do his day to day work. But the Tribunal has not granted any compensation for loss of income due to disability.

¶34

c) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 15 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:32361 MFA No. 150 of 2019

¶37

With the above contentions, learned counsel for the

¶38

appellant sought to allow the appeal.

¶39

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

¶40

a) Firstly, the assertion of claimant that he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, remains unsubstantiated due to lack of documentary evidence. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant notionally.

¶41

b) Secondly, due to the accidental injuries, he has not suffered any loss of income. The said disability has not hindered the claimant's ability to discharge his day-to-day activities and it has not affected his future earnings. In fact, the claimant has continued his job after recovering from the injuries, and there was no loss of income. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly not awarded any compensation for 'loss of future income'.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:32361 MFA No. 150 of 2019

¶44

c) Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not warrant interference.

¶45

d) Lastly, in light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others –vVenkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. on the compensation amount appears excessive.

¶46

With the above contentions, learned counsel for the Insurance Company sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶47

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶48

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 24.12.2013

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:32361 MFA No. 150 of 2019

¶50

due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶51

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.25,000/per month. But he has not produced any documents to substantiate his claim. Therefore, in the absence of proof of income, notional income has to be assessed. According to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year 2013, notional income shall be taken at Rs.8,000/- p.m.

¶52

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained comminuted besicervical fracture of right femur with fracture shaft, right tibia proximal 1/3^rd comminuted fracture, comminuted fracture patella with patellar tendon repture right and distal end comminuted fracture right radius. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant suffered 26% disability to the whole body. Due to the said disability, the claimant unable to do his day to day work. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition

¶53

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:32361 MFA No. 150 of 2019

¶54

of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, I am of the opinion that the whole body disability is assessed at 12%. The claimant is aged about 35 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘16’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,84,320/(Rs.8,0001216*12%) on account of 'loss of future income'. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/awarded by the Tribunal under the head of ‘disability’ is modified and the same is enhanced to Rs.1,84,320/-.

¶55

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He was hospitalized as an inpatient for more than 15 days in the hospital. Considering the prolonged pain during treatment as well as the permanent disability certified by the doctor, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/- .

¶56

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:32361 MFA No. 150 of 2019

¶57

13. Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation

¶58

awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶59

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:

¶60

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	90,000	90,000
Medical expenses	3,25,000	3,25,000
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	20,000	20,000
Loss of income during	36,000	36,000
laid up period
Loss of amenities	30,000	50,000
Loss of future income	1,00,000	1,84,320
Disfigurement	25,000	25,000

¶61

11 -

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:32361 MFA No. 150 of 2019

¶63

Future medical expenses	50,000	50,000
Total	6,76,000	7,80,320

¶64

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶67

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of

¶68

Rs.7,80,320/-.

¶69

d) Following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘MS.JOYEETA BOSE’ (supra) , the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum.

¶70

e) 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. However, interest shall not be applicable to the

¶71

12 -

¶72

NC: 2024:KHC:32361 MFA No. 150 of 2019

¶73

compensation awarded under the head of 'future medical expenses'.

¶74

f) In view of the order dated 25.10.2023 passed by this Court, the claimant is not entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for the delayed period of

¶75

1035 days in filing the appeal.

¶76

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶77

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

¶78

Mr Jagadish v. the Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Jagadish v. the Regional Manager

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

Smt Gangamma Vs Aboobakkar

Siddamallappa Vs Gangadharappa

Smt Yellamma Vs Sri C Shivakumar

Asha Ashok Gudigar Vs Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Sri. C. Mallappan Vs Sri. K. S. Vishwanatha

Ammani Varghese Vs the Assistant Commissioner