Partly allowed

Naganna @ Nagaraja v. Yeshavanthanaika

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2024MFA/8481/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant injured by a tractor appealed for enhanced compensation. The court raised notional income to Rs.9,000 p.m., whole body disability to 13%, awarded Rs.18,000 for laid-up period and Rs.40,000 for loss of amenities, enhancing total compensation from Rs.2,61,632 to Rs.3,93,552 with interest at 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.2,61,632/- to Rs.3,93,552/- with 6% p.a. interest; Insurance Company directed to deposit within six weeks.

Naganna @ Nagaraja Vs Yeshavanthanaika — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38905 MFA No. 8481 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8481 OF 2019 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NAGANNA @ NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O PAPANNA CANTEEN BUSINESS R/O HARUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KADURHALLI POST, KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577548.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. H MALATESH.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

YESHAVANTHANAIKA AGED 43 YEARS S/O KRISHNAIKA R/O T B KAVALU VILLAGE NIDAGATTA POST KADUR TALUK-577548.

¶13

RAMALINGA CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LTD BANTHENAHALLI, BELUR TALUK BANTHENAHALLI BELUR-577548.

¶14

THE MANAGER BHARATHI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. BENGALURU-10

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP.,ADVOCATE FOR R3: NOTICE TO R1 & R2 ARE DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 04.09.2024)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38905 MFA No. 8481 of 2019

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED: 03.09.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.67/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MMACT, KADUR, CHIKKAMGALUR DISTRICT, 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 03.09.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kadur, Chikkamagalur District (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.67/2016.

¶23

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 05.12.2015 at about 9.20 p.m., when the claimant was proceeding on the left side of the road on NH 205 near Haruvanahalli gate, at that time, a tractor bearing registration No.KA-46/M-3592 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38905 MFA No. 8481 of 2019

¶25

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 respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and filed separate 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 claimant, in order to prove the case, examined himself as PW-1, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P58. On behalf of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor got exhibited

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38905 MFA No. 8481 of 2019

¶30

documents. 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.2,61,632/along with interest at the rate of 7% 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.6,000/-, despite claiming that he earned Rs.20,000/- per month.

¶33

(ii) Secondly, due to the accident the claimant has suffered head injury. He has examined the doctor as CW1. In his evidence he has deposed that the claimant has suffered neuro psychological disability at 25%. But the

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38905 MFA No. 8481 of 2019

¶35

whole body disability assessed by the Tribunal at 8% is on the lower side.

¶36

(iii) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 4 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 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head 'loss of amenities'. Hence, 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.20,000/- per month, remains unsubstantiated due to lack of documentary evidence. In the absence of

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38905 MFA No. 8481 of 2019

¶40

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

¶41

(ii) Secondly, the Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and evidence of the doctor, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 8%.

¶42

(iii) Thirdly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature and he was inpatient for only 4 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.

¶43

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

¶44

v- Venkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and

¶45

connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the

¶46

rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7% p.a. on he

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:38905 MFA No. 8481 of 2019

¶49

compensation amount appears excessive. Hence, he

¶50

sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶51

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

¶52

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 05.12.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶53

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 2015, notional income shall be taken at Rs.9,000/- p.m.

¶54

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained head injury and other injuries. The doctor in his

¶55

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:38905 MFA No. 8481 of 2019

¶56

evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 25% neuro psychological disability. Considering the evidence of the doctor and medical records, I am of the opinion that the whole body disability has to be assessed at 13%. The claimant was aged about 58 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘9’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,26,360/(Rs.9,000129*13%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶57

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.18,000/- (Rs.9,000*2 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶58

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

¶59

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:38905 MFA No. 8481 of 2019

¶60

prolonged pain during treatment as well as the permanent disability certified by the doctor, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head 'loss of amenities'.

¶61

Considering the nature of injuries, the

¶62

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

¶63

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:

¶64

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	80,000	80,000
Medical expenses	79,192	79,192
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	50,000	50,000
Loss of income during laid up period	600	18,000
Loss of amenities	0	40,000

¶65

10 -

¶66

NC: 2024:KHC:38905 MFA No. 8481 of 2019

¶67

Loss of future income	51,840	1,26,360
Total	2,61,632	3,93,552

¶68

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶69

ORDER

¶70

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶71

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

¶72

(iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,93,552/- as against Rs.2,61,632/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶73

(iv) 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.

¶74

(v) 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

¶75

11 -

¶76

NC: 2024:KHC:38905 MFA No. 8481 of 2019

¶77

a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

¶78

this judgment.

¶79

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶80

CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Naganna @ Nagaraja v. Yeshavanthanaika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naganna @ Nagaraja v. Yeshavanthanaika

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. Kamale Bai Vs Rudresha a T

Smt. Shruthi B Sollapuri Vs Sri. Dilip Kumar S

Smt Rizwana Nawaz Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

Smt Saritha H G Vs Sri Rajesh Naik

Sri. Channakeshavappa @ Channakeshava Vs the State of Karnataka

Venkatesh Vs Kantha K. M.