High Court allowed appeal in part, setting aside Tribunal finding that claimant was 20% negligent due to invalid licence/insurance. Court modified compensation to Rs. 497,000 and reduced interest rate to 6% p.a.
Compensation enhanced to Rs. 497,000; interest reduced to 6% p.a.; insurance company directed to deposit amount.
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 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2906 OF 2020 (MV)
BETWEEN:
RAMANJINAPPA S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YARS R/O KAREKALLAHALLI GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-520100.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K V NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANNAPPA K N.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
S/O BUDDAPPA NO.11, KAREKALLAHALLI PATTANA KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-520100.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAVI S SAMPRATHI., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DATED: 21.07.2024)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 20.09.2019
NC: 2024:KHC:32711 MFA No. 2906 of 2020
PASSED IN MVC NO.5549/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SCJ AND ACMM MEMBER, MACT-3, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR 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
were near Padmavathi Choultry in Karekallahalli in
Gowribidanuru town, the driver of the luggage autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-40-A-5846 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle of the claimant from opposite direction. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.
NEGLIGENCE:
The Tribunal has erred in answering issue No.1 in the affirmative and holding that the claimant has contributed to the accident to the extent of 20%. The driver of the offending vehicle alone is negligent in causing the accident. The Tribunal has attributed negligence on the claimant only on the ground that he was not having valid driving licence and insurance policy as on the date of accident. The said finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the materials available on record.
QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION
a) Firstly, the claimant asserts that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as Mason. However, the Tribunal has erred in taking the income as merely as Rs.7,000/- per month.
b) Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-2. The Tribunal undervalued the claimant's whole-body disability at 15%, contradicting the evidence of the doctor
that the claimant suffered 46.81% disability to particular limb and 15% to whole body.
c) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 78 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.
With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to allow the appeal.
NEGLIGENCE:
At the time of the accident, the claimant/rider of the motorcycle was not holding valid driving licence and was
having valid insurance policy. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that claimant has contributed to the accident
to the extent of 20%.
QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION:
a) Firstly, the assertion of claimant that he was earning Rs.15,000/- 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.
b) Secondly, the Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and evidence of the doctor, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 15%.
c) Thirdly, 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.
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 8% p.a. on the compensation amount appears excessive.
With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to dismiss the appeal.
NEGLIGENCE:
manner and dashed against the vehicle of the claimant from opposite direction. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized. After recovering from the injuries, the claimant has filed the claim petition seeking compensation.
“1. Whether petitioner proves that he has sustained injuries in the accident occurred on 03.07.2017 at about 5.00 p.m. near Padmavathi Choultry, Karekallahalli, Gowribidanuru Town, Chikkaballapura due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the luggage Autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-40-A-5846 as alleged in the petition?”
ground that the claimant was not holding valid driving licence and having valid insurance policy as on the date of accident. Without there being any finding by the Tribunal that the claimant has contributed to the accident, the Tribunal ought not to have attributed any negligence on the part of the claimant.
QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION:
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 2017, notional income shall be taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m.
compensation of Rs.33,000/- (Rs.11,000*3 months)
under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.
to Rs.50,000/- and under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/- .
18. Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.
| Compensation under different Heads |
As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) |
As awarded by this Court (Rs.) |
|---|---|---|
| Pain and sufferings | 20,000 | 50,000 |
| Medical expenses | 47,000 | 47,000 |
| Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges |
15,000 | 20,000 |
| Loss of income during laid up period |
14,000 | 33,000 |
| Loss of amenities | 20,000 | 50,000 |
| Loss of future income | 189,000 | 297,000 |
| Total | 305,000 | 497,000 |
20. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part .
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.
judgment.
Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14
DM
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in attributing 20% negligence to the claimant solely due to lack of valid driving licence and insurance?
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was adequate considering the income, disability, and nature of injuries sustained?
Whether the rate of interest awarded warrants modification based on recent Division Bench decisions?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ms. Joyeeta Bose and others v Venkateshan.V and othersReferred¶60
Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others –vVenkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
RAMANJINAPPA S/O NARAYANAPPA
THIPPANNA B
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
