Partly allowed

Rangaswamy G.R v. M.N. Boregowda

Karnataka HC25 Sept 2024MFA/6276/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act challenged a judgment awarding ₹5.51 lakh. The High Court modified the tribunal's award, enhanced loss of future income and loss of amenities, and reduced interest to 6%. Total compensation raised to ₹6.91 lakh.

What did the court decide?

Claimant entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,91,450/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from date of filing claim petition.

Rangaswamy G.R Vs M.N. Boregowda — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:39818 MFA No. 6276 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6276 OF 2019 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RANGASWAMY G.R, S/O RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O GOODEHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, KIKKERE HOBLI, K R PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

M.N. BOREGOWDA, S/O NANJUNDEGOWDA, MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. (OWNER OF THE RENAULT DUSTER RXLDCI CAR NO. KA-04-ML-2128)

¶13

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MADHU COMPLEX, MYSURU ROAD, CHANRAYAPATNA TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. MANJULA N TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 [V/C]; NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 16.11.2023)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:39818 MFA No. 6276 of 2019

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27/04/2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.1967/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., AND MACT, HOLENARASIPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant challenging by the judgment dated 27.04.2019 passed by MACT, Holenarasipura in MVC No.1967/2017.

¶23

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 20.08.2017 at about 05.30 a.m., when the when the claimant was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-54-E-9613 in front of Fire Engine Office, NH-75, B.M.Road, Channarayapatna, the driver of the Duster Car bearing No.KA-04-ML-2128 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:39818 MFA No. 6276 of 2019

¶26

negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶27

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.

¶28

Upon service of notice, the respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No.1, despite service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.

¶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

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39818 MFA No. 6276 of 2019

¶31

the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,51,650/along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the respondent No.2/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.40,000/- per month by doing agriculture and milk vending business. However, the Tribunal has erred in taking the income as merely as Rs.9,000/- per month, which is on lower side.

¶34

b) Secondly, due to the accident, claimant has suffered grievous injury. He was inpatient for a period of 46 days. He has suffered lot of pain during the treatment. He has to suffer the disability and unhappiness throughout his life. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for 'pain and suffering' and 'other incidental expenses' is on lower side. The Tribunal has not granted any compensation for 'loss of

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39818 MFA No. 6276 of 2019

¶36

amenities'. Hence, sought for enhancement of

¶37

compensation.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

a) Firstly, even though the claimant has claimed that he was earning Rs.40,000/- per month, he has not produced any document to establish the same. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed notional income of the claimant as Rs.9,000/- per month.

¶41

b) Secondly, considering the injuries sustained by the 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.

¶42

c) Lastly, in light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others –v-

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:39818 MFA No. 6276 of 2019

¶45

Venkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. on the compensation amount appears excessive.

¶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 and the original records.

¶48

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 20.08.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶49

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.40,000/-

¶50

per month. But he has not produced any documents to substantiate his claim. Therefore, in the absence of proof

¶51

of income, notional income has to be assessed. According

¶52

to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal

¶53

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:39818 MFA No. 6276 of 2019

¶54

Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year 2017, notional income shall be taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m.

¶55

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained

¶56

the following injuries:

¶57

Abrasion over forehead 3 X 2 cm

¶58

Intertrochanteric fracture right femur

¶59

Fracture NOF femur left side

¶60

Commuted and displaced fracture distel end right radius

¶61

Fracture distel and left radius

¶62

Taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor

¶63

and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at 23%. The claimant was aged about 40 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.4,55,400/- (Rs.11,0001215*23%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶64

The nature of injuries indicates that the claimant

¶65

must have been under rest for a period of 4 months. He

¶66

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:39818 MFA No. 6276 of 2019

¶68

has suffered lot of pain during the treatment. He has to suffer the disability and unhappiness throughout his life. Considering the evidence of doctor and injuries suffered by the claimant, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/- (Rs.11,000*4 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’. The claimant is also entitled for 'loss of amenities' at Rs.40,000/-.

¶69

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

¶70

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:

¶71

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Loss of future income	3,72,600	4,55,400
Towards pain and suffering	80,000	80,000
Towards medical expenses	42,050	42,050

¶72

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:39818 MFA No. 6276 of 2019

¶73

Towards conveyance,
diet and attendants	30,000	30,000
charges
Loss of income during laid up period	27,000	44,000
Loss of amenities	-	40,000
Total	5,51,650	6,91,450

¶74

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶75

ORDER

¶76

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶77

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶78

c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of

¶79

Rs.6,91,450/-

¶80

d) Following the judgment of the Division Bench of this

¶81

Court in the case of ‘MS.JOYEETA BOSE’ (supra) ,

¶82

the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% p.a.

¶83

e) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest

¶84

from the date of filing of the claim petition till the

¶85

10 -

¶86

NC: 2024:KHC:39818 MFA No. 6276 of 2019

¶87

date of realization, within a period of six weeks from

¶88

the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶89

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)

¶90

JUDGE

¶91

NR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57

Rangaswamy G.R v. M.N. Boregowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangaswamy G.R v. M.N. Boregowda

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

Sri M v Venkataramegowda Vs Sri K P Umar

Sri Surendra H P Vs Sri Chikkanna

Mohan Naik @ Mohan Naik Chowan Vs M/S. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.

The Divisional Controller Vs Lakshman Shetty @ B Lakshminnababu Shetty @ Laxmana B

Dhanalakshmi Vs K K Murthy

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri. Rajanna S