Partly allowed

Sri Ambarish B H v. Mr R M Chandrappa

Karnataka HC30 Aug 2024MFA/3941/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the Claims Tribunal's award in a motor accident case. The court enhanced the total compensation from Rs.15.49 lakh to Rs.21.44 lakh by recalculating future income, adjusting hospitalization costs, and enhancing loss of amenities. It denied interest for the delayed filing period.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.21,44,608/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from filing date, excluding interest on future medical expenses and denying interest for 155-day appeal delay.

Sri Ambarish B H Vs Mr R M Chandrappa — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:35120 MFA No. 3941 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3941 OF 2020 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI AMBARISH B H S/O HANUMANNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O C/O C VENKATESHAPPA S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA ARALUKUNTE VILLAGE HARATI POST KOLAR DISTRICT

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. VISHWANATHA K.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

MR R M CHANDRAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA MAJOR IN AGE R/O RAMAPURA VILLAGE AVANI HOBLI AND POST MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD SUGUNA NURSING HOME COMPLEX ANTHARANGANGE ROAD KEELUKOTE KOLAR-563 101

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.O MAHESH., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 19.06.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 60/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MULBAGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:35120 MFA No. 3941 of 2020

¶18

CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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 19.06.2019 passed by the MACT and Senior Civil Judge, Mulbagal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.60/2015.

¶23

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 26.11.2014, when the claimant was proceeding on new motorcycle towards Aralukunte Village of Kolar Taluk from Bandahalli Village of Mulbagal Taluk, at that time, a tractor bearing registration No.AP-36/U-4056 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:35120 MFA No. 3941 of 2020

¶25

claimant. 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 Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed separate written statements denying the averments made in the claim petition.

¶28

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.Kishan Rao was examined as PW-2, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P24 and C1 to C6. On behalf of the

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:35120 MFA No. 3941 of 2020

¶30

respondents, neither any witness was examined nor got exhibited documents. 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.15,49,200/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶31

The learned counsel for the claimant raised the following contentions:

¶32

(i) Firstly, the Tribunal erred in assuming the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.10,000/-, despite claiming that he earned Rs.18,500/- per month.

¶33

(ii) Secondly, due to the injuries suffered, he was unable to do his day today work, he has lost his job and the Tribunal failed to consider addition of future prospects.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:35120 MFA No. 3941 of 2020

¶35

In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgments

¶36

of the Apex Court in the cases of ‘ PAPPU DEO YADAV vs. NARESH KUMAR AND OTHERS’ 2020 SCC Online SC 752 and ‘ERUDHAYA PRIYA vs. STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. 2020’ SCC Online SC 601.

¶37

(iii) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for

¶38

a period of 38 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.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:35120 MFA No. 3941 of 2020

¶42

(i) Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.18,500/- per month and produced the salary slips as per Ex.P10, to prove the same, he has not examined the employer. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered notional income.

¶43

(ii) Secondly, even though the doctor has assessed particular limb disability at 80%, the whole body disability assessed by the Tribunal at 39% is on the higher side.

¶44

(iii) Thirdly, the claimant has not examined his employer to prove that due to the accidental injury he was unable to do his day today work. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘loss of future income’ is on the higher side.

¶45

(iv) Fourthly, 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.

¶46

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:35120 MFA No. 3941 of 2020

¶47

With the above submissions, learned counsel for the

¶48

Insurance Company sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶49

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

¶50

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 26.11.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶51

The specific case of the claimant is that he was working as a supervisor in a private company and earning Rs.18,500/- per month and he has produced Ex.P10 – salary slip. To prove the same, he has not examined the employer. By looking into the evidenced of PW1 and Ex.P10 and also considering the fact that he was a diploma graduate, I am of the opinion that the monthly income of the claimant has to be assessed at Rs.12,000/-.

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:35120 MFA No. 3941 of 2020

¶53

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained CLW of 15 x 10 x 3 cm. from right parietal to clavicle region and right upper limb swelling over distal humerus creptus with abnormal movements. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 80% to particular limb and 39% to whole body. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at 39%. The disability affects his day today work. Considering the injuries suffered by the claimant and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of

¶54

‘PAPPU DEO YADAV (supra) and ‘ERUDHAYA PRIYA (supra) the claimant is entitled for addition of future prospects.

¶55

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex

¶56

Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -

¶57

v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157],

¶58

since the claimant was aged about 27 years, 40% of his

¶59

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:35120 MFA No. 3941 of 2020

¶60

income has to be added towards future prospects and the applicable multiplier is ‘17’. Hence, the monthly income of the claimant comes to Rs.16,800/- (Rs.12,000 + 40%). Thus, the claimant is entitled to Rs.13,36,608/(Rs.16,800x12x17x39%) on account of 'loss of future income due to disability’.

¶61

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.72,000/- (Rs.12,000*6 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶62

The claimant was hospitalized as an inpatient for more than 38 days in the hospital and subsequently received further treatment. Therefore, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded under the head of ‘food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges’ from Rs.12,600/- to Rs.25,000/-.

¶63

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:35120 MFA No. 3941 of 2020

¶64

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He has suffered lot of pain during the treatment period and he has to suffer the disability throughout his life. 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.60,000/-.

¶65

Considering the nature of injuries, the

¶66

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

¶67

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:

¶68

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal	As awarded by this Court
	(Rs.)	(Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	60,000	60,000
Medical expenses	4,91,000	4,91,000

¶69

11 -

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC:35120 MFA No. 3941 of 2020

¶71

Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	12,600	25,000
Loss of income during laid up period	60,000	72,000
Loss of amenities	30,000	60,000
Loss of future income	7,95,600	13,36,608
Future medical expenses	1,00,000	1,00,000
Total	15,49,200	21,44,608

¶72

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶75

(ii) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶76

(iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.21,44,608/- as against Rs.15,49,200/- awarded by the

¶77

Tribunal.

¶78

(v) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

¶79

compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from

¶80

12 -

¶81

NC: 2024:KHC:35120 MFA No. 3941 of 2020

¶82

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. However, interest shall not be applicable to the compensation awarded under the head of 'future medical expenses'.

¶83

(vi) In view of the order dated 08.12.2022 passed by this Court, the claimant is not entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for the delayed period of 155 days in filing the appeal.

¶84

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶85

¶86

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66

Sri Ambarish B H v. Mr R M Chandrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ambarish B H v. Mr R M Chandrappa

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

Mahesh Shetty Vs Nagesh v

Sri. K v Reddappa @ Reddyappa K v Vs Sri. Byregowda

Mr. Murari Mani Vs Smt. H.R.Rupashree

Pradeep Acharya K Vs Pooja K

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Chinnadorai

Smt. Sameena Vs Sri Hassainabb J S