Partly allowed

Sanjeevamma v. the Manager

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2024MFA/7924/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a Claims Tribunal award, the High Court of Karnataka modified the compensation for a motor accident victim. The court enhanced awards for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and future income based on evidence of disability and notional income, and reduced the applicable interest rate.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 3,76,100; interest at 6% p.a. from date of claim till realization, excluding future medical expenses.

Sanjeevamma Vs the Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:33706 MFA No. 7924 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7924 OF 2018 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SANJEEVAMMA W/O. RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O. NO. E-42-A SUMMANAHALLI VILLAGE SAJJEPALYA, BANGALORE NORTH

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR RODNAVAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE VI, NO. 914 DASAPPA COMPLEX, T. DASARAHALLI BANGLAORE 57.

¶13

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. B PHALAKSHAIAH S/O. BASAVAIAH S AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O. NO. 115, SBM ROAD SB PURA MAIN ROAD ATTACHED TO KSRTC LAYOUT BANGALORE-61.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.JANARDHAN REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 22.08.2024)

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.04.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.2197/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ACMM

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:33706 MFA No. 7924 of 2018

¶19

& XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-25), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

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 20.04.2018 passed by MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.2197/2017.

¶24

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 20.10.2016 when the claimant was coming from city market to home with her relative Shivamma, at entrance, K.R.Market, Bangalore, at that time, car bearing registration No.KA-05-ME-2845 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33706 MFA No. 7924 of 2018

¶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 she 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.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No.2, 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

¶30

Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The claimant, in order to prove the case,

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33706 MFA No. 7924 of 2018

¶32

examined herself as PW-1, another witness as PW-2 and Dr.S.A.Somashekar was examined as PW-3, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. On behalf of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document was produced. 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.302,650/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.

¶33

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

¶34

a) Firstly, the claimant asserts that she was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by selling fancy items. However,

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33706 MFA No. 7924 of 2018

¶36

the Tribunal has erred in taking the income as merely as Rs.8,000/- per month.

¶37

b) Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-3. The Tribunal undervalued the claimant's whole-body disability at 12%, contradicting the evidence of the doctor that the claimant suffered 38% disability to particular limb and 19% to whole body.

¶38

c) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 10 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, she was not in a position to discharge her 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.

¶39

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

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33706 MFA No. 7924 of 2018

¶41

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

¶42

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.

¶43

b) Secondly, the Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and evidence of the doctor, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 12%.

¶44

c) Thirdly, 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.

¶45

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

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:33706 MFA No. 7924 of 2018

¶48

connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the

¶49

rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 8% p.a. on the compensation amount appears excessive.

¶50

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

¶51

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶52

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶53

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 20.10.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶54

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/-

¶55

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

¶56

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:33706 MFA No. 7924 of 2018

¶57

Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year

¶58

2016, notional income shall be taken at Rs.9,500/- p.m.

¶59

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained contusion over the right leg in the lower end, abrasion over the left leg. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 45% to particular limb and 15% to whole body. Therefore, 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 12%. The claimant is aged about 38 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.205,200/- (Rs.9,5001215*12%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶60

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

¶61

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:33706 MFA No. 7924 of 2018

¶62

compensation of Rs.19,000/- (Rs.9,500*2 months) under

¶63

the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶64

The claimant was hospitalized as an inpatient for more than 10 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/- and under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.40,000/- .

¶65

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

¶66

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:

¶67

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:33706 MFA No. 7924 of 2018

¶68

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	31,841	31,841
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	20,000	20,000
Loss of income during laid up period	8,000	19,000
Loss of amenities	20,000	40,000
Loss of future income	172,800	205,200
Future medical expenses	20,000	20,000
Total	302,641	376,041
Rounded off	302,650	376,100

¶69

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶72

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶73

c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.376,100/-

¶74

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:33706 MFA No. 7924 of 2018

¶75

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% per annum.

¶76

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, interest shall not be applicable to the compensation awarded under the head of 'future medical expenses' .

¶77

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶78

¶79

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Sanjeevamma v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeevamma v. the Manager

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. Ambarish @ Amresh Vs the Manager

Sri. Mahesh L S Vs Sri. Mauhmmed Shane Rab

Sri Ramchandra Kini Vs Sri Ananda Ramachandra Kini

Smt Menaka @ Manka Vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Mrs Ramani Vs Abdul Khader

Sri. Gowrisha Vs Sri. Somashetty