Partly allowed

Subramanya v. Suresh Shamrao Chougule

Karnataka HC14 Aug 2024MFA/2076/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This First Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act challenged the compensation award in a motor vehicle accident case. The High Court held that the claimant’s claimed income was unsubstantiated and assessed a notional income of Rs.9,500. The Court enhanced compensation for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, and future income, ordering a total of Rs.3,44,915.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; judgment of the Claims Tribunal modified; total compensation enhanced to Rs.3,44,915 to be deposited by the Insurance Company.

Subramanya Vs Suresh Shamrao Chougule — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:32742 MFA No. 2076 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2076 OF 2019 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SUBRAMANYA S/O GOPALKRISHNA SHERUGAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/A UGRANI MANE, BIJOOR VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. NAGARAJ HEGDE.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SURESH SHAMRAO CHOUGULE S/O SHAMRAO CHOUGULE AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/A 243 KASABA BAVADA CHOUGULE GALLI KOLHAPURA TALUK, MAHARASTRA.

¶13

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., KUNDAURA BRANCH OFFICE PUSHPA BUILDING Y M SHETTY ROAD, KUNDAPURA REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.C. SHANKARA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.129/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:32742 MFA No. 2076 of 2019

¶18

CIVIL JUDGE, KUNDAPURA AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDER, 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 29.10.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura and Member, Additional MACT, Kundapura in MVC No.129/2017.

¶23

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 09.10.2016, the claimant was proceeding in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-20EK-5050 from Kundapura towards Byndoor side, very slowly and carefully and on the correct side on NH-66. At about 04.30 p.m., when the motorcycle reached near Nakatte Bridge, Yadthare Village, at that time, the driver

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:32742 MFA No. 2076 of 2019

¶25

of a lorry bearing Registration No.MH-09-CW-0405 drove

¶26

the same in a very speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from Byndoor side towards Kundapura and due to over speed, the driver of the lorry lost control over it and came to the right side of the road and dashed against the Car and proceeded further and turned to the extreme right side of the road and dashed to the motor cycle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶27

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.

¶28

Upon service of notice, the respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:32742 MFA No. 2076 of 2019

¶30

denying the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No.1, despite service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.

¶31

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.Durgaprasad Shetty was examined as PW-2, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P42. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined but got exhibited a 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.2,69,035/along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:32742 MFA No. 2076 of 2019

¶34

along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶35

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

¶36

a) Firstly, the Tribunal erred in assuming the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.8,000/-, despite evidence showing he earned Rs.18,000/- per month by working as a mason.

¶37

b) Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 6 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.

¶38

With the above contentions, learned counsel for the appellant sought to allow the appeal.

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:32742 MFA No. 2076 of 2019

¶40

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

¶41

a) Firstly, the assertion of claimant that he was earning Rs.18,000/- 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.

¶42

b) Secondly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are just and reasonable and it does not warrant interference.

¶43

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

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:32742 MFA No. 2076 of 2019

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶47

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 09.10.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶49

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.18,000/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

¶50

to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year 2016, notional income shall be taken at Rs.9,500/- p.m.

¶51

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained multiple abrasion all over the body, left distal radius bone fracture and left wrist with scaphoid bone fracture. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of the doctor and

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:32742 MFA No. 2076 of 2019

¶53

medical records, has rightly taken the whole body disability at 8%. The claimant is aged about 32 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.1,45,920/- (Rs.9,5001216*8%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶54

The nature of injuries indicates that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 6 months. Consequently, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.57,000/- (Rs.9,500*6 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶55

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He was hospitalized as an inpatient for more than 6 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 'pain and sufferings' from

¶56

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:32742 MFA No. 2076 of 2019

¶57

Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and under the head of 'loss

¶58

of amenities' from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.40,000/- .

¶59

Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation

¶60

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

¶61

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following

¶62

compensation:

¶63

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	25,000	50,000
Medical expenses	23,595	23,595
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	28,400	28,400
Loss of income during laid up period	44,160	57,000
Loss of amenities	25,000	40,000
Loss of future income	1,22,880	1,45,920
Total	2,69,035	3,44,915

¶64

- 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:32742 MFA No. 2076 of 2019

¶65

16. In the result, the following order is passed:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

a) The appeal is allowed in part . b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,44,915/-.

¶68

d) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. 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

¶69

judgment.

¶70

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶71

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Subramanya v. Suresh Shamrao Chougule

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subramanya v. Suresh Shamrao Chougule

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asha Ashok Gudigar Vs Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Mr Jagadish Vs the Regional Manager

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

Ramanjinappa Vs Thippanna B

Smt. Meenakshi @ Meenamma Vs Haleshappa P K

Basavaraju Vs Smt Ramamani @ Rama