Partly allowed

Siddamallappa v. Gangadharappa

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2024MFA/4478/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant injured by a motorcycle sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The court reassessed notional income at Rs.5,500 per month per KSLSA guidelines, applied 8% whole body disability and multiplier 11, enhanced several heads and raised total compensation from Rs.1,35,100 to Rs.1,85,180 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced from Rs.1,35,100 to Rs.1,85,180 with 6% interest, deposit within six weeks; no interest on enhanced amount for delayed 1981 days.

Siddamallappa Vs Gangadharappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:32244 MFA No. 4478 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4478 OF 2019 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SIDDAMALLAPPA S/O. LATE. MALLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT UGASE VILLAGE, SALAGAME HOBLI HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DIST 573201

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. LETHIF B.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1. GANGADHARAPPA

¶12

S/O. SHANTAVEEREGOWDA

¶13

MAJOR, ADAGURU ADAGURU POST, BELURU TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-57.

¶14

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE MANAGER

¶16

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VENKATESHWARA COMPLEX 2ND FLOOR, BM ROAD, HASSAN HASSAN DISTRICT-573248.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.S KRISHNA KISHORE., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1163/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT,

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:32244 MFA No. 4478 of 2019

¶21

HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

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 30.09.2013 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hassan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.1163/2011.

¶26

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 01.05.2010 at 10.30 a.m., when the claimant was walking near Nursery Form at Seegekere, at that time, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-46/E-

¶27

0881 being ridden by its rider at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:32244 MFA No. 4478 of 2019

¶29

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.

¶30

Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statements denying the averments made in the claim petition.

¶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, Dr.Harish M.K. was examined as PW-2 and another witness as PW-3, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. On behalf of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor got exhibited documents. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:32244 MFA No. 4478 of 2019

¶33

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.1,35,100/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.

¶34

The learned counsel for the claimant raised the following contentions:

¶35

(i) Firstly, the Tribunal erred in assuming the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.4,500/-, despite claiming that he earned Rs.25,000/per month by doing agriculture.

¶36

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

¶37

a period of 4 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

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:32244 MFA No. 4478 of 2019

¶39

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.

¶40

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

¶41

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company raised the following counter-

¶42

contentions:

¶43

(i) Firstly, the assertion of claimant that he was earning Rs.25,000/- 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.

¶44

(ii) Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature and he was inpatient for only 4 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

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:32244 MFA No. 4478 of 2019

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 01.05.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its rider.

¶50

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.25,000/- 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 to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for accidents

¶51

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:32244 MFA No. 4478 of 2019

¶52

occurred in the year 2010, notional income shall be taken at Rs.5,500/- p.m.

¶53

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained fracture of right fibula, lacerated wound over left leg toe, abrasion over right elbow and contusion over right frontal region of scalp. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 25% to particular limb. 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 8%. The claimant was aged about 53 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘11’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.58,080/(Rs.5,5001211*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 three months. Consequently, the claimant is entitled for

¶55

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:32244 MFA No. 4478 of 2019

¶56

compensation of Rs.16,500/- (Rs.5,500*3 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶57

The claimant was hospitalized as an inpatient for more than 4 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.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/-.

¶58

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. 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.38,000/to Rs.50,000/- and under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/-.

¶59

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

¶60

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:32244 MFA No. 4478 of 2019

¶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	38,000	50,000
Medical expenses	15,600	15,600
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	5,000	15,000
Loss of income during laid up period	9,000	16,500
Loss of amenities	20,000	30,000
Loss of future income	47,500	58,080
Total	1,35,100	1,85,180

¶64

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶67

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

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:32244 MFA No. 4478 of 2019

¶69

10 -

¶70

(iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,85,180/- as against Rs.1,35,100/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶71

(iv) 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 a copy of this judgment.

¶72

(v) In view of the order dated 01.10.2021 passed by

¶73

this Court, the claimant is not entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for the delayed period of 1981 days in filing the appeal.

¶74

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶75

¶76

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63

Siddamallappa v. Gangadharappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddamallappa v. Gangadharappa

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

Smt. Nikhitha Vs Pruthvi S. Guptha

H Anand Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Thimmaiah Vs the Managing Director

Smt Gangamma Vs Aboobakkar

Smt Yellamma Vs Sri C Shivakumar

Naveena H R Vs Ramesh