A claimant injured in a 2014 auto accident appealed the Tribunal's Rs.40,000 award. The High Court reassessed notional income at Rs.8,500 per month, took whole-body disability at 15%, awarded Rs.2,94,800 total including heads for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, with interest at 6% per annum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1538 OF 2019 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI BASAVARAJU S/O. HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT HULIHALLI VILLAGE HONNAVALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572 217
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BHANUPRAKASH H V .,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S KRISHNA KISHORE., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 15.06.2023)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:16.10.2018
PASSED IN MVC NO.1195/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., TIPTUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
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 16.10.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.1195/2015.
and negligent manner, and caused the accident. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.
Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. 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.40,000/- 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.
(i) Firstly, due to the accident the claimant has suffered grievous injuries, he was inpatient for a period fo one month, he has examined the doctor as PW2, who in his evidence has deposed that the claimant has suffered
48% disability to whole body. But the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for 'loss of future income'.
(ii) Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of one month. 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 and he has to suffer the disability throughout his life. But the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the heads of 'pain and sufferings', 'loss of amenities' and other incidental heads. Hence, he sought to allow the appeal.
(i) Firstly, even though the doctor deposes that the claimant has suffered 48% disability the same is not proved by producing the documents.
(ii) Secondly, even though some medical bills are produced, they are not supported by prescriptions. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not awarded compensation under the head 'loss of future income'.
(iii) 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.
(iv) Lastly, in light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others – v- Venkateshan.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. Hence, he sought to dismiss the appeal.
Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,44,800/- (Rs.8,5001216*15%) on account of 'loss of future income'.
ORDER
(iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,94,800/- as against Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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 a copy of
this judgment.
Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
CM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's award of Rs.40,000 compensation for injuries with certified 48% disability was adequate and required enhancement?
At what rate should interest be payable on the enhanced compensation?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ms. Joyeeta Bose and others v. Venkateshan V and othersFollowed¶13
Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others – v- Venkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Basavaraju S/o Hanumaiah
Sri Channappa S/o Mallaiah
The United India Assurance Co Ltd
H.T. Narendra Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
