Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1146 (KAR)

Jagadeesh v. Prahalada

2020-06-19

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2020
JUDGMENT Suraj Govindaraj, J. - Heard. Admit. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. The appellant is before this Court being aggrieved by the judgment of the Principal District and Sessions Judge and MACT-I at Chitradurga in MVC No.1621/2010 dated 27.05.2013. 4. The case of the appellant is that on 17.03.2010, he boarded an auto-rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-16/B-401 at Obaiahnahatty to go to Nayakanahatty. When the auto-rickshaw was moving near Rekhalagere Gate, the driver of the said vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner resulting in toppling of the auto-rickshaw due to which the appellant suffered grievous injuries. Firstaid was given at CHC., Nayakanahatty at the first instance and thereafterwards, he was taken to District Hospital, Chitradurga for better treatment. The appellant has spent Rs.10,000/- towards medicine and treatment. As such, the appellant had approached the Tribunal for compensation for the injuries caused and for reimbursement of said expenses. 5. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.74,000/- as compensation under the following heads of account: Sl. No. Heads of accounts Rupees (Rs.) 1 Injury, pain and sufferings 30,000 2 Attendant's charges 2,000 3 Nutrition and future medical care 10,000 4 Loss of earnings during the period of treatment and rest 9,000 5 Medical expenses 3,000 6 Loss of amenities 20,000 Total 74,000 6. The Tribunal, however, held that the licence held by the driver of the auto-rickshaw involved in the accident was one for light motor vehicle without an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. Since the driver of the auto-rickshaw did not possess a licence enabling him to drive a transport vehicle like autorickshaw, the Tribunal held that there is a violation of the insurance policy and directed the compensation to be paid by the first respondent owner of the auto-rickshaw. 7. Sri.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant contends that both the quantification of the compensation made as also the imposition of the liability on the owner of the vehicle by exempting the Insurance Company is improper and the same requires to be interfered with by this Court. 8. Per contra, Sri.O.Mahesh, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company would contend that the reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. The same is proper and correct and there is no requirement for any interference with the said judgment. 9. 8. Per contra, Sri.O.Mahesh, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company would contend that the reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. The same is proper and correct and there is no requirement for any interference with the said judgment. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent Insurance Company and perused the papers. 10. The question of a driver having a licence to drive a light motor vehicle being also permitted to drive a light transport vehicle is no longer res integra. The same has been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN VS ORIENTAL INS. CO. LTD, (2016) 4 SCC 298 wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that a person holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle could also drive a transport vehicle as long as it is a light motor/transport vehicle. Applying the said decision to the present case, I am of the opinion that the Insurance Company would be liable to make payment of the compensation amount. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the income of the appellant which has been taken at Rs.4,500/- p.m. by the Tribunal is on the lower side when the appellant had infact contended that he was earning Rs.6,000/- p.m. Though such a contention of earning has been taken up, there is no document which has been produced to establish the said earnings of Rs.6,000/- p.m. Even if the notional income fixed for the purpose of Lok-adalath is taken into consideration as on the date of the accident, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration Rs.5,500/- to be the notional income of the appellant. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the notional income could not be taken into consideration but the minimum wages as on that date ought to be taken into consideration. 13. This Court is unable to accept the said submission. This Court has been following the practice of applying the notional income as fixed for the purpose of Lok-adalath for calculation of the income of the victim of the accident. The minimum wages may not be the appropriate method to be adopted in the present case. Hence, I am of the opinion that the notional income fixed for the purpose of Lok-adalath would have to be applied. 14. The minimum wages may not be the appropriate method to be adopted in the present case. Hence, I am of the opinion that the notional income fixed for the purpose of Lok-adalath would have to be applied. 14. The appellant at the time of the accident was aged about 32 years. The treating doctor has not been examined in the matter. However, it is on record that the appellant has suffered fracture of both bones of left leg i.e., tibia and fibula bones. He has become permanently disabled and therefore, he could not carry any agricultural work which was his avocation prior to the accident. On account of the said fracture, the appellant was treated as an inpatient for a period of 13 days, he was operated for bone fracture, rods and screws were inserted. Though witness summons was issued twice, the treating doctor did not appear and depose as regards the disability caused. Hence, in the absence thereof, the Tribunal on its own came to the conclusion that there was a disability of 10%. Taking the same into account since the Tribunal has examined the appellant during the course of proceedings, the compensation to be awarded on account of loss of earnings due to disability would be: Rs.5,500 x 12 x 16 x 10/100 = Rs.1,05,600/- 15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards attendant charges. It is not in dispute that the appellant was treated as an inpatient for a period of 13 days. Hence, I am of the opinion that the same needs to be enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. 16. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards nutrition and future medical care. The appellant having undergone operations and rods and screws having been inserted, I am of the opinion that the same needs to be enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. 17. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9,000/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment and rest taking into account a sum of Rs.4,500/- to be the monthly earnings. As stated earlier, monthly income is to be taken at Rs.5,500/-. Hence, on this account, compensation ought to be awarded is Rs.5,500 x 2 = Rs.11,000/-. 18. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards medical expenses. I am of the considered opinion that the same is on very low side. As stated earlier, monthly income is to be taken at Rs.5,500/-. Hence, on this account, compensation ought to be awarded is Rs.5,500 x 2 = Rs.11,000/-. 18. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards medical expenses. I am of the considered opinion that the same is on very low side. Though the appellant has not produced any documents to establish the actual expenses incurred, considering that the appellant was operated upon and the rods and screws were fixed, I am of the opinion that a sum of Rs.20,000/- is required to be awarded on this account. 19. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities. For the same reasons as above, it is enhanced to Rs.30,000/- considering the nature of injuries suffered. 20. In view of the above, the comparative table of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and by this Court is under: Sl. No. Heads of accounts Rupees (Rs.) Compensation awarded by this Court (Rs.) Enhanced compensation (Rs.) 1 Injury, pain and sufferings 30,000 30,000 - 2 Attendant's charges 2,000 5,000 3,000 3 Nutrition and future medical care 10,000 20,000 10,000 4 Loss of earnings during the period of treatment and rest 9,000 11,000 2,000 5 Medical expenses 3,000 20,000 17,000 6 Loss of amenities 20,000 30,000 10,000 7 Loss of earning due to disability - 1,05,600 1,05,600 Total 74,000 2,21,600 1,47,600 21. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment of Principal District and Sessions Judge and MACT-I, Chitradurga in MVC No.1621/2010 dated 27.05.2013 is hereby modified. iii. The appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,47,600/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.