Partly allowed

Sri. Eshwara N Gonda v. Sri. Suresh Bhajanthri

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2024MFA/5953/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant injured in a motorcycle-car collision appealed for enhancement of compensation. Court applied KSLSA notional income of Rs.8,500 p.m., 10% disability with multiplier 15, and enhanced total compensation from Rs.2,54,710 to Rs.3,27,710, denying interest on enhancement for delayed appeal filing.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.3,27,710 with 6% p.a. interest; insurer directed to deposit within six weeks; no interest on enhanced amount for 783 days' delay.

Sri. Eshwara N Gonda Vs Sri. Suresh Bhajanthri — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39305 MFA No. 5953 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5953 OF 2019 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. ESHWARA N GONDA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O NAGAPPA GONDA R/O GANDHI NAGAR KOTESHWARA POST & VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576222

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI.NAGARAJA HEGDE., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. SURESH BHAJANTHRI AGED MAJOR S/O NAGENDRAPPA R/O H NO 186/A GOLASAR TALUK INDI TALUK BIJAPUR DISTRICT – 586217.

¶13

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD S J R TOWERS, 3^RD & 4^TH FLOOR NO.27, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD 3^RD PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU-78.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 17.09.2024)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:14.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.427/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39305 MFA No. 5953 of 2019

¶18

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.02.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kundapura (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.427/2015.

¶22

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 03.11.2014 at about 6.00 p.m., when the claimant was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-47/K-6916 from Haduvalli towards Bhatkal side, at that time, a Tata Indica car bearing registration No.KA-28/B-9771 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39305 MFA No. 5953 of 2019

¶24

accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶25

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.

¶26

Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition.

¶27

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.Dinesh Shetty was

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39305 MFA No. 5953 of 2019

¶29

examined as PW-2, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. On behalf of the respondents, no witness

¶30

was examined but got exhibited document namely Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took 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.2,54,710/- 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.

¶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.6,500/-, despite claiming that he earned Rs.18,000/- per month.

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39305 MFA No. 5953 of 2019

¶34

(ii) Secondly, 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, 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 under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side. Hence, he 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.18,000/- 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.

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39305 MFA No. 5953 of 2019

¶38

(ii) Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature and he was inpatient for only 8 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. Hence, he sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶39

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

¶40

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 03.11.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶41

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. But he has not produced any

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:39305 MFA No. 5953 of 2019

¶43

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 2014, notional income shall be taken at Rs.8,500/- p.m.

¶44

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained laceration of right ankle, exposing the joiont with division of EHL, EDL, tendons, fracture of right talus bone, laceration of left leg bleeding bone deep, left knee swollen and other injuries. 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 10%. The claimant was aged about 36 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘15’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,53,000/(Rs.8,5001215*10%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶45

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:39305 MFA No. 5953 of 2019

¶46

The nature of injuries indicates that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 6 months. Consequently, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.51,000/- (Rs.8,500*6 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶47

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.45,000/- to Rs.50,000/and under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.20,000/to Rs.40,000/-.

¶48

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

¶49

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:39305 MFA No. 5953 of 2019

¶50

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following

¶51

compensation:

¶52

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	45,000	50,000
Medical expenses, food, nourishment, etc.	33,710	33,710
Loss of income during laid up period	39,000	51,000
Loss of amenities	20,000	40,000
Loss of future income	1,17,000	1,53,000
Total	2,54,710	3,27,710

¶53

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶56

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

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:39305 MFA No. 5953 of 2019

¶58

10 -

¶59

(iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,27,710/- as against Rs.2,54,710/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶60

(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.

¶61

(vi) In view of the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by this Court, the claimant is not entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for the delayed period of 783 days in filing the appeal.

¶62

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶63

¶64

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Sri. Eshwara N Gonda v. Sri. Suresh Bhajanthri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Eshwara N Gonda v. Sri. Suresh Bhajanthri

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

Sri. Rajesha Vs Sri. Sharath H.D.

Sri Chikkarudraiah R Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Mani. a Vs M/S. Hariharan Logistics Parthiban

S. Shivakumara Swamy Vs G. N. Shivakumar

Shriram Gic Ltd. Vs Sri. Shameemthaz

Sri Srinivas K T Vs Sri Manjunath R K