Partly allowed

Ravikumar. H. K. v. Shivanna

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2024MFA/9024/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by an injured motorcyclist seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the MACT. The court fixed notional income at Rs.9,500 p.m., applied multiplier 16 with 10% whole-body disability, enhanced pain and sufferings and loss of amenities, awarding Rs.380,247 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.380,247 with interest @6% p.a., payable by the Insurance Company within six weeks; no interest on future medical expenses.

Ravikumar. H. K. Vs Shivanna — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:31394 MFA No. 9024 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9024 OF 2018 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RAVIKUMAR. H. K. S/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT AT HARIHARAPURA DODDERI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK-572 132.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SHIVANNA S/O. KARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT HARIHARAPURA DABBEGHATTA POST MADHUGIRI TALUK -572 132.

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BY ITS MANAGER KASTURI MANSION, M.G. ROAD BEHIND KRISHNA TALKIES ABOVE CORPORATION BANK TUMAKURU -572 101.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. A M VENKATESH, ADVCOATE FOR R2: BITUCE TI R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 08/02/19.)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04/09/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.1300/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:31394 MFA No. 9024 of 2018

¶18

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MADHUGIRI, 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

¶23

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant challenging by the judgment dated 04.09.2018 passed by MACT, Madhugiri in MVC No.1300/2016.

¶24

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 25.04.2016 when the claimant was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-51EJ-5371 on the left side of the road from Begnaluru to Dasegowdanahally, at that time, TVS moped bearing registration No.KA-64-J-5617 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31394 MFA No. 9024 of 2018

¶26

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 respondents 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-2, and Dr.Gopalkrishna was

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31394 MFA No. 9024 of 2018

¶31

examined as PW-3, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P29. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined but got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1. 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.300,347/- 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 has raised the following contentions:

¶33

a) Firstly, the claimant asserts that he was earning Rs.20,000/per month by working as agriculture. However, the Tribunal has erred in taking the income as merely as Rs.9,000/- per month.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31394 MFA No. 9024 of 2018

¶35

b) Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-3. Due to the accident the claimant has sustained facial injuries. The Tribunal undervalued the claimant's whole-body disability at 10%, contradicting the evidence of the doctor that the claimant suffered 30% disability to particular limb and 10% to whole body.

¶36

c) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 17 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.

¶37

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

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:31394 MFA No. 9024 of 2018

¶39

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

¶40

a) 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.

¶41

b) Secondly, the Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and evidence of the doctor, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 10%.

¶42

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.

¶43

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

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:31394 MFA No. 9024 of 2018

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶46

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶47

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 25.04.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶48

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.

¶49

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained bifrontal depressed comminuted fracture with CFS rhinorrhoea. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 30% to facial region and

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:31394 MFA No. 9024 of 2018

¶51

10% 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 10%. The claimant is aged about 35 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘16’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.182,400/- (Rs.95001216*10%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶52

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’.

¶53

The claimant was hospitalized as an inpatient for more than 17 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

¶54

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:31394 MFA No. 9024 of 2018

¶55

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.40,000/- to Rs.65,000/- and under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.50,000/- .

¶56

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

¶57

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:

¶58

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	40,000	65,000
Medical expenses	13,047	13,047
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	6,300	6,300
Loss of income during	9,000	28,500

¶59

10 -

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:31394 MFA No. 9024 of 2018

¶61

laid up period
Loss of amenities	35,000	50,000
Loss of future income	162,000	182,400
Future medical expenses	35,000	35,000
Total	300,347	380,247

¶62

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶65

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶66

c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.380,247/-.

¶67

d) 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 copy of this judgment. However, interest shall not be applicable

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:31394 MFA No. 9024 of 2018

¶69

11 -

¶70

to the compensation awarded under the head of

¶71

'future medical expenses'.

¶72

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶73

¶74

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Ravikumar. H. K. v. Shivanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravikumar. H. K. v. Shivanna

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

Baby Manasa Vs Sri Lakshmana Gowda B N

Mrs. Meena Vs Mrs. Rehana Nazeer

Smt. T. Dhanalakshmi Vs Sri. K. Kumar @ Madhukumar

Nagarajanaik Vs Vinod Kumar

Sri Narayana Singh Vs by Its Manager

Narasimhappa @ Narasimhamurthy N Vs Royal Sundram General Insurance Co. Ltd.