Partly allowed

Mr Santhosh Kumar v. Vs Sri Sreeram R

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2024MFA/3037/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant appealed against inadequate motor accident compensation. Court affirmed Tribunal's findings on negligence, notional income and functional disability but enhanced amounts under heads of pain and suffering, loss of income during laid-up period and loss of amenities, raising total compensation from Rs.4,89,600/- to Rs.5,59,562/- with interest at 6%.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mr Santhosh Kumar v Vs Sri Sreeram R — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:15450 MFA No. 3037 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3037 OF 2022 (MV-I)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

MR SANTHOSH KUMAR V S/O SRI V VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS OCC NIL R/AT NO 790 1^ST MAIN, 6^TH COSS L.N.COLONY YESHWANTHPURA BENGALURU - 560 022

¶6

…APPELLANT

¶7

(BY SMT.SHARADAMBA A R.,ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI SREERAM R S/O RAJAMANI MAJOR R/AT NO.27, 9^TH MAIN SBM COLONY MATHIKERE BENGALURU - 560 054

¶11

THE MANAGER GO DIGIT GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ATLANTIS NO 95, 4^TH B CROSS ROAD KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT 5^TH BLOCK BENGALURU - 560 095

¶12

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA.,ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:15450 MFA No. 3037 of 2022

¶14

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.01.2022 PASSED IN MVC No.258/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION AND SEEKING FOR ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶15

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

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This appeal is preferred by the appellant - claimant challenging the judgment & award dated 5^th January 2022 passed in MVC No.258/2019 on the file of the XXIII Additional Small Causes Judge, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal ). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶18

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per

¶19

their status before the Tribunal.

¶20

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶21

On 23.9.2018 at about 10.30 p.m. the claimant was

¶22

riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-04-JE9983 from Mathikere towards Yeshwanthapura, at that

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:15450 MFA No. 3037 of 2022

¶24

time when he reached near Aspire Training Centre, 2^nd Cross, Mathikere, Bengaluru, one Yamaha FZS motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-02-JW-4533 came in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed and dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant. Due to the occurrence of the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and incurred huge expenses towards medical treatment. He is unable to do his work as he was doing prior to occurrence of accident. Hence he filed the claim petition seeking compensation.

¶25

3.1 On service of notice, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed separate written statements denying the averments made in the claim petition including age, avocation, income and negligence attributed against rider of the offending vehicle and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶26

3.2 Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the relevant issues for consideration.

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:15450 MFA No. 3037 of 2022

¶28

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.P16. The respondents examined two witnesses as RWs.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R5.

¶29

3.4 On the basis of the material evidence, both oral and documentary and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.4,89,600/- with interest at 6% per annum and directed the respondent No.2/insurer to deposit the compensation within sixty days with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶30

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

¶31

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the income of the appellant assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the compensation awarded under different heads is not in accordance with

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:15450 MFA No. 3037 of 2022

¶33

the material on record. Therefore, she seeks to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel representing the insurance company contends that there is no error, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He further contends that the Tribunal awarded just and reasonable compensation under all heads, in accordance with the material evidence, both oral and documentary and the same does not call for interference.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, it is seen that the claimant has produced the documents as per Ex.P1 to P16, out of which, Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 are the Police records, which clearly depict registration of the FIR and laying of charge sheet against the rider of the offending vehicle and same has not been challenged or controverted. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly attributed the negligence against rider of the offending vehicle. Ex.P9 to Ex.P16 are the medical

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:15450 MFA No. 3037 of 2022

¶38

records, which clearly depict the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident and the expenditure met for treatment of the injuries.

¶39

Now coming to the age, avocation and income of the claimant, though the claimant pleaded that he was working as Gym Trainer earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month, no material is placed before the Court with regard to proof of income. The accident is of the year 2019. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income of the claimant to be Rs.12,500/- per month as per the Legal Services Authority chart and the same does not call for interference. The claimant was aged 27 years as on the date of accident and the appropriate multiplier would be '17', which is rightly applied by the tribunal and the same does not call for interference.

¶40

The doctor has been examined as PW.2, who opined the disability to the extent of 24% to the whole body and he has not specified the disability to the

¶41

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:15450 MFA No. 3037 of 2022

¶42

particular limb. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence of the doctor and considering the age, avocation and nature of injuries sustained by the claimant rightly assessed the functional disability at 10% to the whole body. I do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the said assessment made by the Tribunal.

¶43

In view of the above, the Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.2,55,000/- (Rs.12,500 x 12 x 17 x 10%) towards loss of future income and the same is retained.

¶44

The tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award additional amount of Rs.20,000/-. In all, Rs.60,000/- is awarded under this head.

¶45

The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,27,062/- towards medical expenses on the basis of the actual bills produced by the claimant, which does not call for interference.

¶46

The Tribunal awarded Rs.12,500/- towards loss of income during laid up period, which is on the lower

¶47

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:15450 MFA No. 3037 of 2022

¶48

side. Considering the magnitude of injuries suffered by the claimant, atleast three months is required to recuperate and get back to normal day to day activities. In view of the above, Rs.37,500/- (Rs.12,500 x 3) is awarded under this head.

¶49

The tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards loss of future amenities and happiness. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award additional amount of Rs.25,000/-. In all, Rs.45,000/- is awarded under this head.

¶50

The tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment charges, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶51

The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards

¶52

future medical expenses, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶53

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:15450 MFA No. 3037 of 2022

¶54

In view of the above, the claimant would be

¶55

entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,59,562/- as against Rs.4,89,600/- awarded by the Tribunal, as

¶56

Sl. No.	Head of compensation	Amount of compensation awarded
1	Loss of future income	Rs.2,55,000-00
2	Pain & suffering	Rs. 60,000-00
3	Medical expenses	Rs.1,27,062-00
4	Loss of income during laid up period	Rs. 37,500-00
5	Loss of future amenities and happiness	Rs. 45,000-00
6	Attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment charges	Rs. 20,000-00
7	Future medical expenses	Rs. 15,000-00
	Total	Rs.5,59,562-00

¶57

mentioned in the table below:

¶58

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶59

O R D E R

¶60

i) The appeal is allowed in part

¶61

10 -

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:15450 MFA No. 3037 of 2022

¶63

ii) The impugned Judgment & Award dated 5th January 2022 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.258/2019, is modified.

¶64

iii) The appellant/claimant would be entitled to compensation of Rs.5,59,562/- (Rupees five lakhs fifty-nine thousand five hundred and sixty-two only) as against Rs.4,89,600/awarded by the Tribunal alongwith interest at 6% per annum.

¶65

iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited with interest at 6% per annum by the respondent no.2/insurer within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶66

v) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant-claimant as per the terms of the tribunal upon proper identification.

¶67

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

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

GSS

Mr Santhosh Kumar v. Vs Sri Sreeram R

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mr Santhosh Kumar v. Vs Sri Sreeram R

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.N.Nachappa Vs Pradeep Kumar H.K.

Dhyamaiah Vs Nagaraju N .

Gangadhara L Poojari Vs the Manager Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Chetan G S Vs Nagaraj

Harish Kumar Vs Radhakrishna K

Shri Praveen H Vs Shri S G Narasimha Murthy