Partly allowed

Punith B T v. Harish B S

Karnataka HC26 Sept 2024MFA/4453/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Enhancement of motor accident compensation for a pillion rider who sustained tibia and fibula fractures with 24% whole body disability. Applying KSLSA notional income of Rs.12,500/- p.m. and multiplier 17, the court raised total compensation from Rs.6,18,000/- to Rs.8,87,100/- with interest at 6% per annum following the Division Bench ruling in Joyeeta Bose.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.6,18,000/- to Rs.8,87,100/- with 6% interest; Insurance Company directed to deposit within six weeks.

Punith B T Vs Harish B S — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:40003 MFA No. 4453 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4453 OF 2019 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

PUNITH B T S/O THIMMAPPA B K AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O BEKKANAHALLI VILLAGE CHANGADAHALLI POST SAKALESAPURA TALUK PRESENTLY ADDRESS R/AT BEHIND COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE VIJAYANAGARA EXTENSION HASSAN BELUR ROAD, HASSAN-573201

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SMT. SHARADAMBA A R.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

HARISH B S

¶12

Digitally signed by S/O SUBRAHAMANYA B K HEMALATHA A MAJOR Location: HIGH BEKKANAHALLI VILLAGE COURT OF CHANGADAHALLI POST KARNATAKA SAKALESAPURA TALUK.

¶13

THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, MADIKERE BRANCH OFFICE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. SHANIVARASANTHE HOBLI SOMAVARAPETE TALUK, KODAGU-571325

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 31.08.2024)

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:40003 MFA No. 4453 of 2019

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:14.2.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 832/18 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles

¶21

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.02.2019 passed by the 5^th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.832/2018.

¶22

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 13.05.2018, the claimant was riding the

¶23

motor bike bearing Registration No.KA-46-E-7257 as pillion rider and when he was returning to his Village at about 04.30 p.m., on Shanivarasanthe Bekkanahali Village near the farm of Karjur Udayagiri, the rider of the motor

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:40003 MFA No. 4453 of 2019

¶25

bike ridden the said motor bike in a rash and negligent manner and had caused the accident. 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 riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.

¶27

Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement 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 Tribunal, by impugned judgment and

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:40003 MFA No. 4453 of 2019

¶30

award has partly allowed the claim petition and held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,18,000/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.

¶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.8,000/-, despite claiming that he earned Rs.20,000/- per month.

¶33

(ii) Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 14 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 and he has to suffer the disability throughout his life. Considering the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:40003 MFA No. 4453 of 2019

¶35

under the heads of 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head 'loss of amenities'. Hence, he sought to allow the appeal.

¶36

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

¶37

(i) Firstly, the assertion of claimant that he was earning Rs.20,000/- 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.

¶38

(ii) Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature and he was inpatient for only 14 days. 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

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:40003 MFA No. 4453 of 2019

¶40

'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are just and reasonable and it does not warrant interference.

¶41

(iii) Lastly, in light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others –

¶42

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.

¶43

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

¶44

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 13.05.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶45

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. But he has not produced any

¶46

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:40003 MFA No. 4453 of 2019

¶47

documents to 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 2018, notional income shall be taken at Rs.12,500/- p.m.

¶48

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained scratch injuries to left hand, scratch injuries on right knee, fracture of tibia and fibula. 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 24%. The claimant was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘17’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.6,12,000/- (Rs.12,5001217*24%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶49

The nature of injuries indicates that the claimant

¶50

must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 3

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:40003 MFA No. 4453 of 2019

¶52

months. Consequently, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.37,500/- (Rs.12,500*3 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶53

The claimant was hospitalized as an inpatient for more than 14 days in the hospital and subsequently received further treatment. 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 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- and the claimant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the head of 'loss of amenities'.

¶54

Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶55

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:40003 MFA No. 4453 of 2019

¶56

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following

¶57

compensation:

¶58

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	20,000	30,000
Medical expenses	1,45,000	1,45,000
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	12,600	12,600
Loss of income during laid up period	24,000	37,500
Loss of amenities	0	25,000
Loss of future income	3,92,000	6,12,000
Future medical expenses	25,000	25,000
Total	6,18,600	8,87,100
Rounded off to	6,18,000

¶59

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶62

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:40003 MFA No. 4453 of 2019

¶63

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

¶64

(iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.8,87,100/- as against Rs.6,18,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶65

(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.

¶66

(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

¶67

this judgment.

¶68

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶69

CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Punith B T v. Harish B S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punith B T v. Harish B S

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

Smt Kenchamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Sparsha. Y. S, @ Kusuma, Vs Sri Prajwal S@ Prajwal S Gowda

Smt Ganashree S Vs Kiran Kumar M S

Sri Nanjundaswamy Vs M/S S L N Coffee Curing Works

Mr S E Shivakumar Vs Sri Basavaraju S J

Smt Roopa Subhas Lamani Vs Mr. Prateek M Baldota