Partly allowed

Smt. Akkayamma v. Sri. M. Venkataram

Karnataka HC27 Aug 2024MFA/9835/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court modified the award by increasing amounts for loss of future income, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, and expenses based on medical evidence and guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed in part; total compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,30,264; Insurance Company directed to deposit amount with interest within six weeks.

Smt. Akkayamma Vs Sri. M. Venkataram — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:34274 MFA No. 9835 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9835 OF 2018 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. AKKAYAMMA W/O SRI GOPALAPPA AGE 76 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURAL COOLIE R/AT NO.10A, RACHAPUR CHINTAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA - 563 125.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. KETAN LATHUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SURESH M LATUR .,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. M. VENKATARAM S/O SRI MUNIYAPPA R/O 213/2, LAKSHMI SAGARA NILAYA 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN KOLARAMMA EXTN. KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.

¶13

THE REGIONAL MANAGER

¶14

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD., LAKSHMI COMPLEX M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.S.V SUDHAKAR REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 27.08.2024)

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:22.09.2018

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:34274 MFA No. 9835 of 2018

¶19

PASSED IN MVC NO.4426/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-11), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

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 22.09.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-11) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.4426/2016.

¶24

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 20.07.2015 when the claimant was walking on extreme left side of the road from Jambhapura to Rachapura, at that time, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-07/S-1692 being ridden by its rider at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34274 MFA No. 9835 of 2018

¶26

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 riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.

¶28

Upon service of notice, the respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No.1, despite service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.

¶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 other three witnesses as PW-2 to PW-4, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:34274 MFA No. 9835 of 2018

¶31

to Ex.P14. 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.1,51,214/- 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.7,500/-, despite claiming that he earned Rs.9,000/- per month by working as an agricultural coolie.

¶34

(ii) Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-2. The Tribunal undervalued the claimant's whole-body

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:34274 MFA No. 9835 of 2018

¶36

disability at 6%, contradicting the evidence of the doctor that the claimant suffered 34% disability to a particular limb and 17% to the whole body.

¶37

(iii) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 7 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.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

(i) Firstly, the assertion of claimant that he was earning Rs.9,000/- per month, remains unsubstantiated

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:34274 MFA No. 9835 of 2018

¶42

due to lack of documentary evidence. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant notionally.

¶43

(ii) Secondly, the Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and evidence of the doctor, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 6%.

¶44

(iii) Thirdly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature and he was inpatient for only 7 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.

¶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:34274 MFA No. 9835 of 2018

¶48

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 20.07.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶49

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. Even 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.

¶50

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained fracture of left femoral candyle and other injuries. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 34% to particular limb and 17% to whole body. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, I am of the opinion that the whole body disability has to be taken at 12%. The claimant was aged about 70 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘5’.

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:34274 MFA No. 9835 of 2018

¶52

Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.64,800/- (Rs.9,000125*12%) 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 two 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’.

¶54

The claimant was hospitalized as an inpatient for more than 7 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.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-.

¶55

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. Considering

¶56

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

¶57

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:34274 MFA No. 9835 of 2018

¶58

under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.15,000/to Rs.25,000/- and under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/-.

¶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	15,000	25,000
Medical expenses	82,464	82,464
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	5,000	10,000
Loss of income during laid up period	1,750	18,000
Loss of amenities	20,000	30,000
Loss of future income	27,000	64,800
Total	1,51,214	2,30,264

¶63

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:34274 MFA No. 9835 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.2,30,264/- as against Rs.1,51,214/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶69

(iv) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

¶70

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.

¶71

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶72

CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Smt. Akkayamma v. Sri. M. Venkataram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Akkayamma v. Sri. M. Venkataram

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

Smt Yashaswini (Sahana) Vs Sri Swamy (Tejas a)

Sri Yellappa @ Yallappa Since Dead by His Legal Heir Sri Krishna Vs the Deputy Commissioner

The Manager Vs Smt Shakuntala

Sri Rakesh B K Vs T S Krishnamurthy

Sri. Puttannaiah. R Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Managing Director Vs Golagani Sathyanarayana