Partly allowed

Sri Ramchandra Kini v. Sri Ananda Ramachandra Kini

Karnataka HC21 Aug 2024MFA/8112/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed Motor Vehicles Appeal partially. Appellant claimed enhancement in compensation due to grievous injuries and loss of future income arising from a road traffic accident. Court enhanced compensation by adding loss of amenities and adjusting loss of income heads, directing insurer to deposit increased amount.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 4,50,958/- comprising partial enhancement in heads of loss of amenities, loss of income during laid up period, and food/nourishment charges.

Sri Ramchandra Kini Vs Sri Ananda Ramachandra Kini — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:33578 MFA No. 8112 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8112 OF 2018 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI RAMCHANDRA KINI S/O ANANADA KINI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O H NO.337 BILALKHAND MUTTALI POST, THALANG VILLAGE BHATKAL TALUK, U.K. DISTRICT

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA HEGDE., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI ANANDA RAMACHANDRA KINI S/O RAMACHANDRA KINI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O H NO.1-B/A, V V. ROAD BHATKAL TALUK, U.K. DISTRICT-574211.

¶13

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE KUNDAPURA SRI S V COMPLEX NH-66 VODERHOBLI KUNDAPURA-576201 REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 03.07.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.665/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:33578 MFA No. 8112 of 2018

¶18

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, [SITTING AT KUNDAPURA], KUNDAPUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.07.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udupi (sitting at Kundapura), Kundapura (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.665/2017.

¶23

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 21.06.2017 at about 17.30 hours, when

¶24

the claimant was proceeding as a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-47/J-4461 from Bhatkal towards Sarpanakatte side, at that time, the rider of the motorcycle rode the same at a high speed and in a

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33578 MFA No. 8112 of 2018

¶26

rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle and the motorcycle over turned on the road. 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 riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.Vivek K.S. was

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33578 MFA No. 8112 of 2018

¶31

examined as PW-2, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. 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.3,67,960/- 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.

¶32

The learned counsel for the claimant raised the following contentions:

¶33

(i) Firstly, the Tribunal erred in assuming the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.9,000/-, despite claiming that he earned Rs.15,000/- per month by working as a labour.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33578 MFA No. 8112 of 2018

¶35

(ii) Secondly, 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, 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 income during laid up period, 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side and the Tribunal failed to award any compensation under the head 'loss of amenities'.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

(i) Firstly, the assertion of claimant that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, remains unsubstantiated due to lack of documentary evidence. In the absence of

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33578 MFA No. 8112 of 2018

¶40

proof of income, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant notionally.

¶41

(ii) Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature and he was inpatient for only 10 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 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are just and reasonable and it does not warrant interference.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 21.06.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:33578 MFA No. 8112 of 2018

¶46

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.15,000/- 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.

¶47

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained fracture of tibial condyle bone right side. 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 37 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.1,98,000/- (Rs.11,0001215*10%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶48

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:33578 MFA No. 8112 of 2018

¶49

The nature of injuries indicates that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 3 months, which is inclusive of bed rest. Consequently, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.33,000/(Rs.11,000*3 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶50

The claimant was hospitalized as an inpatient for more than 10 days in the hospital and subsequently received further treatment. Therefore, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded under the head of ‘food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges’ from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.12,000/-.

¶51

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 award compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head 'loss of amenities'.

¶52

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:33578 MFA No. 8112 of 2018

¶53

15.Considering the nature of injuries, the

¶54

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

¶55

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:

¶56

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	50,000	50,000
Medical expenses	97,958	97,958
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	8,000	12,000
Loss of income during laid up period	30,000	33,000
Loss of amenities	0	40,000
Loss of future income	1,62,000	1,98,000
Future medical expenses	20,000	20,000
Total	3,67,958	4,50,958

¶57

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶58

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:33578 MFA No. 8112 of 2018

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶61

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

¶62

(iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,50,958/- as against Rs.3,67,958/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶63

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

¶64

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶65

CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Sri Ramchandra Kini v. Sri Ananda Ramachandra Kini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramchandra Kini v. Sri Ananda Ramachandra Kini

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 Dayanand a Vs Akamal Jan

The Managing Director Vs Sri Shivakumar

K S Sameeullah Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Sri. Ambarish @ Amresh Vs the Manager

Sri. Mahesh L S Vs Sri. Mauhmmed Shane Rab

Sri Karthik B S Vs Smt Sandhya H R