Partly allowed

Sri Nagaiah v. Mr Syed Nousad

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2024MFA/4501/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant injured in a motorcycle accident sought enhancement of compensation. The High Court applied notional income of Rs.11,000 per month per KSLSA guidelines for 2017 accidents and enhanced compensation to Rs.2,59,179, awarding amounts towards loss of future income, laid-up period and increased pain and suffering.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.1,77,279 to Rs.2,59,179 with interest @ 6% p.a.; insurer to deposit 90% within six weeks; future medical expenses without interest.

Sri Nagaiah Vs Mr Syed Nousad — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37891 MFA No. 4501 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4501 OF 2019 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI NAGAIAH, S/O GANTEGURUVAIAH @ CHANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT 114, 1^ST CROSS, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, KASTURIBANAGAR, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 026.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI RAMACHANDRA R NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

MR SYED NOUSAD, S/O SYED MOUDDIN, NO.11, 2^ND MAIN, 7^TH CROSS, VALMIKINAGAR, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 026.

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.25/1, 2^ND FLOOR, BUILDING NO.2, SHANKARANAYANA, BUILDING NO.1, M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.S LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 17.09.2024.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.03.2019 PASSED IN MVC

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:37891 MFA No. 4501 of 2019

¶16

NO.6604/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXIV ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 challenging by the judgment dated 20.03.2019 passed by MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.6604/2017.

¶22

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 08.09.2017 when the claimant was pedestrian proceeding on the left side of road near Bhagyalakshmi Rice Mill, New Guddadahalli, Mysore Road, at that time, the rider of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-03-EF-6253 being ridden by its rider at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37891 MFA No. 4501 of 2019

¶24

claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the

¶25

claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶26

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

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 award has partly allowed the claim petition and held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.177,279/along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:37891 MFA No. 4501 of 2019

¶31

Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶32

The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions:

¶33

a) Firstly, the claimant asserts that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working in a Bakery. However, the Tribunal has erred in taking the income as merely as Rs.8,000/- per month.

¶34

b) Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-2. The doctor has stated that the claimant suffered 27% disability to particular limb and 9% to whole body. The said disability has affected his earning capacity. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards 'loss of future income'.

¶35

c) Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 8 days. Even after discharge from the hospital,

¶36

he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37891 MFA No. 4501 of 2019

¶38

has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the same, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side.

¶39

With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to allow the appeal.

¶40

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

¶41

a) 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.

¶42

b) Secondly, the whole body disability assessed by the doctor at 9% will not come in the way of claimant discharging his day to day activities. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly not awarded any compensation towards 'loss of future income'.

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37891 MFA No. 4501 of 2019

¶44

c) Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by the

¶45

claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not warrant interference.

¶46

With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶47

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

¶48

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 08.09.2017 due to contributory negligence on the part of the claimant to the extent of 10% and on the part of the rider of the offending vehicle to the extent of 90%.

¶49

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/per month. But he has not produced any documents to substantiate his claim. Therefore, in the absence of proof

¶50

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:37891 MFA No. 4501 of 2019

¶51

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.

¶52

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained fracture of lateral end of right clavicle, abrasion over face and knee joints with blunt head injury and closed lacerated wound over right eyelid. The doctor has stated that the claimant suffered 27% disability to particular limb and 9% to whole body. The said disability has affected his earning capacity. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the claimant is entitled to compensation towards 'loss of future income'. The claimant is aged about 68 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘5’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.59,400/- (Rs.11,000125*9%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶53

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:37891 MFA No. 4501 of 2019

¶54

The nature of injuries indicates that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 3 months. Consequently, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.33,000/- (Rs.11,000*3 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶55

The claimant was hospitalized as an inpatient for more than 8 days in the hospital and subsequently received further treatment. 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.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- .

¶56

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

¶57

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:37891 MFA No. 4501 of 2019

¶58

15. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following

¶59

compensation:

¶60

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	40,000	50,000
Medical expenses	56,279	56,279
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	5,000	5,000
Loss of income during laid up period	16,000	33,000
Loss of amenities	50,000	50,000
Loss of future income	0	54,900
Future medical expenses	10,000	10,000
Total	177,279	259,179

¶61

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶64

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶65

c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.259,179/-.

¶66

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:37891 MFA No. 4501 of 2019

¶67

d) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit 90% of the total 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 copy of this judgment. However, the compensation awarded under the head of 'future medical expenses' shall not

¶68

carry any interest.

¶69

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶70

¶71

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Sri Nagaiah v. Mr Syed Nousad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nagaiah v. Mr Syed Nousad

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

Mr Basavaraj Mankani @ Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Jagadeesh B. Mumal Vs N. Dayananda

Smt. Sharada @ Sharadamma Vs M/S. United India Ins. Co. Ltd.

Sathisha M S Vs Basavaraju

Sri Manjunatha Reddy Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Anand Shetty Vs a Dinesh Kumar