Partly allowed

Sri Syed Anees v. Sri Mohammed Yusuf

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2024MFA/5704/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant injured as autorickshaw passenger in a road accident sought enhancement of compensation from Rs.514,631. The High Court reassessed notional income at Rs.11,000 per month per KSLSA guidelines for accidents of 2017, enhanced heads including loss of future income and laid-up period income, and fixed interest at 6% following Joyeeta Bose.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.669,431 with 6% p.a. interest (no interest on future medical expenses); Insurance Company directed to deposit within six weeks.

Sri Syed Anees Vs Sri Mohammed Yusuf — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38564 MFA No. 5704 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5704 OF 2019 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI SYED ANEES S/O SRI SYED HABEEB AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O NEHRUNAGAR NEAR SAHARA SHADI MAHAL CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. VINOD GOWDA.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI MOHAMMED YUSUF S/O SRI ABDUL GHANI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O RAGIGUDDA RIGHT SIDE 3RD CROSS SHIVAMOGGA.

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI JOAKIM NORONHA S/O LATE JOSEPH NORONHA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O 1ST FLOOR, TANK MOHALLA 2ND CROSS, SHIVAMOGGA.

¶14

THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE B H ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.C. SETHARAM RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R3: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 05.04.2024: NOTICE T R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38564 MFA No. 5704 of 2019

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.04.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.131/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles

¶22

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant challenging by the judgment dated 20.04.2019 passed by MACT, Chikkamagaluru in MVC No.131/2018.

¶23

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 15.07.2017, when the claimant was traveling in autorickshaw bearing No.KA-14-A-7105 as a passenger in order to go to Transport Office, at Honnali

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38564 MFA No. 5704 of 2019

¶25

Road on flyover, at that time, the driver of the said autorickshaw drove the same at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the bullock cart. 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 respondents appeared through counsel and filed 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 Tribunal, by impugned judgment and

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38564 MFA No. 5704 of 2019

¶30

award has partly allowed the claim petition and held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.514,631/along with interest at the rate of 8% 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 has raised the following contentions:

¶32

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

¶33

b) Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as CW-1. The doctor has stated that the claimant suffered 25% disability to particular limb. Due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 6 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.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38564 MFA No. 5704 of 2019

¶35

Considering the same, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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.

¶39

b) Secondly, the Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and evidence of the doctor, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 25%.

¶40

c) Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38564 MFA No. 5704 of 2019

¶42

Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not warrant interference.

¶43

d) Lastly, in light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others –vVenkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 8% p.a. on the compensation amount appears excessive.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 15.07.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶47

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:38564 MFA No. 5704 of 2019

¶48

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 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.

¶49

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained fracture of lateral condyle Tibia and Haemarthrosis. 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 25%. The claimant is aged about 43 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘14’.

¶50

Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.462,000/- (Rs.11,0001214*25%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:38564 MFA No. 5704 of 2019

¶52

The nature of injuries indicates that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 2 months. Consequently, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.22,000/- (Rs.11,000*2 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶53

The claimant was hospitalized as an inpatient for more than 6 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.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- .

¶54

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

¶55

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:38564 MFA No. 5704 of 2019

¶56

15. 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	30,000	40,000
Medical expenses	10,431	10,431
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	60,000	60,000
Loss of income during laid up period	3,200	22,000
Loss of amenities	50,000	50,000
Loss of future income	336,000	462,000
Future medical expenses	25,000	25,000
Total	514,631	669,431

¶59

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶62

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶63

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:38564 MFA No. 5704 of 2019

¶64

c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.669,431/-.

¶65

d) 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%

¶66

p.a.

¶67

e) 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 copy of this judgment. However, the compensation awarded under the head of 'future medical expenses' shall not carry any interest.

¶68

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶69

¶70

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Sri Syed Anees v. Sri Mohammed Yusuf

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Syed Anees v. Sri Mohammed Yusuf

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 Nagamani Vs Mr D Sreenivasalu Reddy

The Manager Vs Smt Chikkamma

Sri. K v Ramakrishna Vs Sri. Vinaya Kumar M B

Smt. Harshitha S Vs Sri. Indresh B

H Mahesh Vs Anand

Druvakumar Vs Smt Pavithra P G (Dharshini)