Partly allowed

Sri Dayanand a v. Akamal Jan

Karnataka HC20 Aug 2024MFA/8821/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in part allowed the Motor Vehicle First Appeal. It enhanced the total compensation from Rs. 2,16,939 to Rs. 2,92,799 based on notional income and injury assessment. The interest rate was reduced from 8% to 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Modified tribunal judgment to award total compensation of Rs. 2,92,799; interest fixed at 6% p.a.; payment directed within six weeks.

Sri Dayanand a Vs Akamal Jan — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:33427 MFA No. 8821 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8821 OF 2018 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI DAYANAND A S/O ANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/O YETTINAKATTE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI,HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. CHETHAN B.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

AKAMAL JAN

¶12

S/O LATE ABDUL JABBER M MAJOR

¶13

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

R/AT KANDALLE VILLAGE GIFT STORE, B M ROAD KANDALLE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTrict-573 201.

¶15

2. THE MANAGER

¶16

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

¶17

1ST FLOOR, KRUTHIKA ACARDE NEAR N R CIRCLE, H N PURA ROAD

¶18

HASSAN DISTRICT-573201. …RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. LAKSHMINARAYAN C.,ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 20.08.2024)

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:33427 MFA No. 8821 of 2018

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:28.07.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.657/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IIND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBERS, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been

¶26

filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.07.2018 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.657/2016.

¶27

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 25.02.2016 at about 9.00 p.m. when the claimant was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-18/W-7315 on BM road near Kamli Village post office, Hassan Taluk, at that time, a TVS XL

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33427 MFA No. 8821 of 2018

¶29

bearing registration No.KA-13/W-2091 being ridden by its rider at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶30

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.

¶31

Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition.

¶32

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.Abdul Basheer was

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33427 MFA No. 8821 of 2018

¶34

examined as PW-2, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P24. 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.2,16,939/- 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.

¶35

The learned counsel for the claimant raised the following contentions:

¶36

(i) Firstly, the Tribunal erred in assuming the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.30,000/-, despite claiming that he earned Rs.30,000/- per month by working as an agriculturist.

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33427 MFA No. 8821 of 2018

¶38

(ii) Secondly, 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. 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 submissions, learned counsel for the appellant sought to allow the appeal.

¶40

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

¶41

(i) Firstly, the assertion of claimant that he was earning Rs.30,000/- 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.

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33427 MFA No. 8821 of 2018

¶43

(ii) Secondly, 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.

¶44

(iii) Lastly, in light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others – v- 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 8% p.a. on the compensation amount appears excessive.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:33427 MFA No. 8821 of 2018

¶48

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 25.02.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶49

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.30,000/- 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 2016, notional income shall be taken at Rs.9,500/- p.m.

¶50

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained open fracture 5^th metatarsal right, abrasion over right ankle, abrasion over right knee, tenderness over chest 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 6%. The claimant was aged about 21

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:33427 MFA No. 8821 of 2018

¶52

years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘18’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,23,120/(Rs.9,5001218*6%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶53

The nature of injuries indicates that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 3 months. Consequently, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.28,500/- (Rs.9,500*3 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶54

The claimant was hospitalized as an inpatient for more than 4 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

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:33427 MFA No. 8821 of 2018

¶57

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

¶58

amenities' from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.

¶59

Considering the nature of injuries, the

¶60

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

¶61

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:

¶62

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	40,000	50,000
Medical expenses	26,179	26,179
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	25,000	25,000
Loss of income during laid up period	18,000	28,500
Loss of amenities	30,000	40,000
Loss of future income	77,760	1,23,120
Total	2,16,939	2,92,799

¶63

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:33427 MFA No. 8821 of 2018

¶64

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶67

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

¶68

(iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,92,799/- as against Rs.2,16,939/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶69

(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.

¶70

(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 a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶71

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Sri Dayanand a v. Akamal Jan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Dayanand a v. Akamal Jan

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

Mohammed Anwar Sab Vs Vishwanatha B

Smt. Sahana Vs Sri. Srinivas

Smt. Chandana. P. S. Vs Sri. Syed Aleem

The Managing Director Vs Sri Shivakumar

K S Sameeullah Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Smt. Meghana D Vs Sri Eleazer Kumar M