Partly allowed

Sri. Papireddy v. Mr. Venkata Reddy

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2024MFA/9647/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant injured in a tempo-motorcycle accident sought enhancement of motor accident compensation. The High Court reassessed notional income at Rs.9,000 per month, awarded additional amounts for loss of amenities, laid-up period and future income, totalling Rs.3,16,240. Applying the Amrit Paul Singh precedent, it directed the insurance company to pay first instance with liberty to recover from the

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.3,16,240 with 6% interest; insurer directed to deposit within six weeks with liberty to recover from insured owner.

Sri. Papireddy Vs Mr. Venkata Reddy — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38411 MFA No. 9647 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9647 OF 2018 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. PAPIREDDY S/O.NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT RAYAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE SIDDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 562105

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. HARISH BABU K N.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

MR. VENKATA REDDY

¶12

S/O CHIKKA NARAYANASWAMY NO 23,BUDUGARAHALLI VILLAGE SIDLAGHATTA TALUK

¶13

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT- 562105.

¶15

THE BRANCH MANAGER SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD S-5, 2ND FLOOR MONARCH CHAMBERS INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE – 560001.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

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

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.07.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.3639/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IX

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38411 MFA No. 9647 of 2018

¶20

ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXXIV ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU (SCCH-7), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

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 24.07.2018 passed by the IX Additional Small Causes and Additional MACT., Bangalore (SCCH-7) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.3639/2016.

¶25

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 10.11.2015 at about 4.00 p.m., when the claimant was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-47/0455 near Kadupakunte Village, Siddlaghatta Taluk, at that time, a tempo bearing registration No.KA-47/0455 being driven by its driver at a

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38411 MFA No. 9647 of 2018

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and

¶30

2 appeared through counsel and filed separate written statements denying the averments made in the claim petition.

¶31

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, Dr.S.Ramachandra was

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38411 MFA No. 9647 of 2018

¶33

examined as PW-2, and another witness as PW-3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. On behalf of the respondents, three witnesses were examined as RW-1 to RW-3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R5. 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.2,57,040/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and since the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driven licence and the offending vehicle had no valid permit and fitness certificate, directed the owner of the offending vehicle to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶34

The learned counsel for the claimant raised the following contentions:

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38411 MFA No. 9647 of 2018

¶36

(i) Firstly, the Tribunal erred in assuming the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.8,000/-, despite claiming that he earned Rs.15,000/- per month.

¶37

(ii) Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 14 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 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side. The Tribunal has failed to award compensation under the head 'loss of amenities'.

¶38

(iii) Thirdly, the Tribunal has given a finding that the offending vehicle was not having a valid permit and rightly exonerated the Insurance Company. But, in respect of third parties are concerned, the Insurance Company has to pay the compensation amount at the first instance with

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38411 MFA No. 9647 of 2018

¶40

liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of AMRIT

¶41

PAUL SINGH AND ANOTHER V. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS [(2018) 7 SCC 558]. Hence, he sought to allow the appeal.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

(ii) Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature and he was inpatient for only 14 days. Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:38411 MFA No. 9647 of 2018

¶47

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.

¶48

(iii) Lastly, as on the date of the accident the offending vehicle was not having valid permit. Since the insured has violated the policy condition, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability. Hence, sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶49

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

¶50

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 10.11.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶51

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

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:38411 MFA No. 9647 of 2018

¶54

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.

¶55

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained fracture of both bones (radius & ulna) right fore arm, fracture of cervical spine, lacerated wound over the scalp 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 9%. The claimant was aged about 40 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.1,45,800/(Rs.9,0001215*9%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶56

The nature of injuries indicates that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 3

¶57

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:38411 MFA No. 9647 of 2018

¶58

months. Consequently, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.27,000/- (Rs.9,000*3 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶59

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

¶60

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

¶61

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:

¶62

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:38411 MFA No. 9647 of 2018

¶63

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	60,000	60,000
Medical expenses	13,440	13,440
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	10,000	10,000
Loss of income during laid up period	24,000	27,000
Loss of amenities	0	40,000
Loss of future income	1,29,600	1,45,800
Future medical expenses	20,000	20,000
Total	2,57,040	3,16,240

¶64

Re.liabililty:

¶65

The Tribunal has given a finding that the offending vehicle was not having a valid permit as on the date of the accident. The Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability on the ground

¶66

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:38411 MFA No. 9647 of 2018

¶67

that the insured has violated the policy condition. However, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of AMRIT PAUL (supra) , in respect of third party is concerned, the Insurance Company has to pay the compensation at the first instance with liberty to recover the same from the insured.

¶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.3,16,240/- as against Rs.2,57,040/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶73

(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 with liberty to recover

¶74

NC: 2024:KHC:38411 MFA No. 9647 of 2018

¶75

12 -

¶76

the same from the insured – owner of the offending

¶77

vehicle.

¶78

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶79

¶80

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

Sri. Papireddy v. Mr. Venkata Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Papireddy v. Mr. Venkata Reddy

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 Nagaiah Vs Mr Syed Nousad

The Manager L and T Gic Ltd. Vs Lakshman Puda Sutar

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Umesha

Nagaratnamma Vs Kamakshi

Smt Tejashwini D R @ Teja R Vs the Branch Manager

The Reliance General Insurance Vs Sri.Hemanth Kumar P R