Partly allowed

Sri. Sunil Kumar v. Abhisheka K. P.

Karnataka HC19 Aug 2024MFA/5431/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Judge enhanced the compensation awarded in a motor vehicle accident case against an insurance company. The court adjusted the notional income for an adolescent claimant and increased compensation for future income and loss of amenities, while upholding awards for pain, suffering, and medical expenses.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed in part. Total compensation enhanced to Rs.7,14,360/- along with interest at 6% p.a. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal was modified.

Sri. Sunil Kumar Vs Abhisheka K. P. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:33141 MFA No. 5431 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5431 OF 2018 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. SUNIL KUMAR S/O RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 17½ YEARS APPELLANT SINCE MINOR REP:BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN & FATHER SRI.RANGAIAH S/O MARIYAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/OF AMBIGOWDANAHALI VILLAGE MALLAPATTANA HOBLI, ARKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573102.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. MURTHY D L.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

ABHISHEKA K. P. S/O PARAMESHA #05, KELAGALALE VILLAGE ARKALGUDU TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573102.

¶13

THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE KRISHNA COMPLEX K.S.R.T.C. BUS STAND ROAD HASSAN-573201.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 26.07.2019)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:33141 MFA No. 5431 of 2018

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1590/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, ARKALGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

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 05.03.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Arkalgud (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.1590/2016.

¶21

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 12.05.2016 at about 7.30 p.m., when the claimant was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-05/EA-1615 to Mallipattana, when they came near Basavanahalli-Mallipattana road, the rider of the motorcycle stopped the vehicle and the claimant was standing near the motorcycle, at that time, another motorcycle

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33141 MFA No. 5431 of 2018

¶23

bearing registration No.KA-13/EB-4110 being ridden by its rider at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.Ravi H.S. was

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33141 MFA No. 5431 of 2018

¶28

examined as PW-2, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P28 and C1 to C14. 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 place on account of rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,47,100/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.

¶29

The learned counsel for the claimant raised the following contentions:

¶30

(i) Firstly, at the time of the accident the claimant was aged about 16 years and he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as an agricultural coolie. But the Tribunal erred in

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33141 MFA No. 5431 of 2018

¶32

assessing the annual income of the claimant as Rs.30,000/-.

¶33

(ii) Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 7 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.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

(i) Firstly, the assertion of claimant that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, remains unsubstantiated due to lack of documentary evidence and since he was a

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33141 MFA No. 5431 of 2018

¶38

minor, the Tribunal rightly assessed the notional income of Rs.30,000/- per annum.

¶39

(ii) Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature and he was inpatient for only 7 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 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are just and reasonable and it does not warrant interference.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 12.05.2016

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:33141 MFA No. 5431 of 2018

¶44

due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶45

The specific case of the claimant is that he was aged about 16 years and he was an agricultural coolie and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of CHETANA AND OTHERS vs. BABUJI AND OTHERS reported in ACJ 2021 1146 has held that a person who has completed 14 years of age and has not completed 18 years is considered as adolescent and has considered the notional income. The relevant paragraph is extracted below:

¶46

“9. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 17 years as on the date of the accident. He might not be an adult but he cannot be considered as a child. He has to be considered as an adolescent. Section 2(i) and (ii) of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) defines as follows:

¶47

“(i) “Adolescent” means a person who has completed his fourteenth year of age abut has not completed his eighteenth year;

¶48

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:33141 MFA No. 5431 of 2018

¶49

(ii) “Child” means a person who has not completed his fourteenth year of age or such age as may be specified in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009), whichever is more.”

¶50

10. Section 3 of the Act prohibits employment of a child in certain occupations and processes. The said Act does not prohibit the adolescent of 17 years to involve in a milk vending business. The deceased and his family are from rural area and it is common for a person of 17 years to be involved in milk vending or similar occupations. The Tribunal has completely lost sight of this fact and the reasoning is contrary to and in the teeth of the statutory provisions.”

¶51

In view of the above, the notional income has to be considered. According to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year 2016, notional income shall be taken at Rs.9,500/- p.m.

¶52

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained pain and swelling of shoulder, pain and swelling of thigh, pain and swelling of wrist and other injuries.

¶53

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:33141 MFA No. 5431 of 2018

¶54

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 23%. The claimant was aged about 16 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘18’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,71,960/- (Rs.9,5001218*23%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶55

The nature of injuries indicates that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of one month. Consequently, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.9,500/- under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶56

The claimant was hospitalized as an inpatient for more than 7 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,

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:33141 MFA No. 5431 of 2018

¶58

10 -

¶59

I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by

¶60

the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of amenities' from

¶61

Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/-.

¶62

Considering the nature of injuries, the

¶63

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

¶64

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:

¶65

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	40,000	40,000
Medical expenses	1,24,400	1,24,400
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	3,500	3,500
Loss of income during laid up period	0	9,500
Loss of amenities	10,000	20,000
Loss of future income	1,24,200	4,71,960

¶66

11 -

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:33141 MFA No. 5431 of 2018

¶68

Future medical expenses	45,000	45,000
Total	3,47,100	7,14,360

¶69

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶72

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

¶73

(iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.7,14,360/- as against Rs.3,47,100/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶74

(v) 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.

¶75

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶76

¶77

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56

Sri. Sunil Kumar v. Abhisheka K. P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Sunil Kumar v. Abhisheka K. P.

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

Ramanjinappa Vs Thippanna B

Smt. Meenakshi @ Meenamma Vs Haleshappa P K

Subramanya Vs Suresh Shamrao Chougule

Miss. Neethi Sridharan Vs Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited

Smt. Kethna T Vs Sri Santosh Kumar M

Mohammed Anwar Sab Vs Vishwanatha B