Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1470 (KAR)

Rajendra Nayak v. Manjunatha

2020-07-23

JYOTI MULIMANI, S.SUJATHA

body2020
JUDGMENT S. Sujatha, J. - The claimant as well as the insurance company are in appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Principal Senior Civil Judge, Udupi ['MACT' for short] in MVC No.263/2014 dated 04.08.2015 whereby the MACT has determined the total compensation of Rs.9,25,160/- [Rupees Nine Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand One Hundred and Sixty only] with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of actual deposit, relating to the road traffic accident, the subject matter of MVC No.263/2014 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ['Act' for short] by the claimant seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him. 2. The claimant has filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act alleging actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle APM bus bearing registration No.KA-20-B- 3337 duly insured with the insurance company Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. It was contended that on 21.09.2013 at about 9.55 a.m., when the claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-20-J-3883 from Udupi Samskrit College to City Bus Stand side, near Naghabana of Brindavana Junction Cross, he met with the road traffic accident owing to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries culminating in physical disability for life. 3. In the aforesaid proceedings, the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle remained absent. The insurance company contested the matter. The MACT after framing the issues and considering the material on record, awarded the total compensation of Rs.9,25,160/- [Rupees Nine Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand One Hundred and Sixty only] with interest at the rate of 8% per annum, fastening the liability on the insurance company to pay the compensation amount as awarded and to deposit the same within a period of 60 days from the date of the order. 4. Being aggrieved, the claimant has preferred the appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation whereas the insurance company is challenging the quantum awarded as exorbitant and unreasonable. 5. Learned counsel for the insurance company argued that the MACT has fixed the notional income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/- [Rupees Nine Thousand only] per month in the absence of any supporting documents to establish the income of the claimant as a driver. 5. Learned counsel for the insurance company argued that the MACT has fixed the notional income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/- [Rupees Nine Thousand only] per month in the absence of any supporting documents to establish the income of the claimant as a driver. It was further argued that the doctor PW-3 has assessed the disability at 18% in the right lower limb and 5% in the left lower limb. Considering the same, the whole body disability assessed by the MACT at 12% is on the higher side. Nextly, it was argued that the interest awarded at 8% per annum on the determined compensation amount is excessive. 6. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimant has sustained Right Acetabulam Fracture and Left Inferior Public Rami Fracture and was taken treatment as an inpatient from 21.09.2013 to 26.12.2013. The disability certificate shows that he has permanent colostomy. In such circumstances, the compensation awarded towards the pain and sufferings and loss of amenities at Rs.70,000/- [Rupees Seventy Thousand only] and Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand Only] respectively, is too meager. Learned counsel submitted that the monthly income of the claimant determined at Rs.9,000/- [Rupees Nine Thousand only] per month is quite reasonable and the same does not call for any reduction by this Court on the other hand, requires to be enhanced, considering the occupation of the claimant as a driver. As regards the interest aspect also, learned counsel sought for confirmation of the interest awarded at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of actual deposit. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. The challenge made by both the parties on the quantum of compensation awarded by the MACT is relating to the income, disability and interest as aforesaid. As regards the determination of income, we are of the considered opinion that in the absence of any material evidence placed on record to establish the actual/regular income of the claimant while determining the income notionally, it would be appropriate to refer to the normal mode of determination of income adopted by this Court in umpteen number of cases. As regards the determination of income, we are of the considered opinion that in the absence of any material evidence placed on record to establish the actual/regular income of the claimant while determining the income notionally, it would be appropriate to refer to the normal mode of determination of income adopted by this Court in umpteen number of cases. In order to maintain the uniformity and consistency in the cases where no income of the victim of the road traffic accident is established, it would be just and reasonable to determine the monthly income of the claimant notionally at Rs.8,000/- [Rupees Eight Thousand only], generally adopted for the road traffic accident which occurred during the year 2013. 9. Regarding the aspect of disability, ordinarily, 1/3rd of the disability to the lower limb assessed would be taken as the disability of the whole body, but there is no inhibition to differ based on the material evidence available on record. Even otherwise, the difference between the disability assessed by the doctor PW-3 as 18% in the right lower limb and 5% in the left lower limb qua the disability assessed at 12% by the MACT is negligible. Considering the disability assessed by the doctor PW-3 vis- -vis the material evidence on record, the MACT has determined the disability of the claimant to the whole body at 12% which in our view appears to be reasonable. We do not find any ground to interfere with the said finding. 10. In view of re-determination of the monthly income at Rs.8,000/- [Rupees Eight Thousand only], applying the multiplier of 16, considering the age of the claimant as 32 with the disability at 12%, the loss of future earnings due to disability would be 8,000 X 12 X 16 X 12% - Rs.1,84,320/- [Rupees One Lakh Eighty Four Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty only]. 11. It is obvious that the claimant has suffered sever pain and agony owing to the injuries sustained in the accident in question. He was treated as an inpatient from 21.09.2013 to 26.12.2013. The said injury being extensive injury of the anal sphincter and Perineal region, we deem it appropriate to award Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh only] towards pain and sufferings instead of Rs.70,000/- [Rupees Seventy Thousand only] awarded by the MACT. 12. It is apparent that the claimant has permanent colostomy. He was treated as an inpatient from 21.09.2013 to 26.12.2013. The said injury being extensive injury of the anal sphincter and Perineal region, we deem it appropriate to award Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh only] towards pain and sufferings instead of Rs.70,000/- [Rupees Seventy Thousand only] awarded by the MACT. 12. It is apparent that the claimant has permanent colostomy. He has to take care of the hygienic condition of the colostomy bags. It is certain that the claimant has to forego many of his amenities of life which he would have otherwise enjoyed but for the accidental injuries. Considering the gravity of the injuries sustained and its impact on the entire life of the claimant, we are of the considered view that it would be just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh only] towards loss of amenities as against Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand only] awarded by the MACT. 13. Similarly, we deem it appropriate to award Rs.30,000/- [Rupees Thirty Thousand only] towards attendant expenses, nourishment etc., and Rs.24,000/- [Rupees Twenty Four Thousand only] towards loss of income for the laid up period. The amount of Rs.5,30,800/- [Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty Thousand and Eight Hundred only] awarded towards medical expenses remains intact. 14. Accordingly, we re-determine the compensation as under: S. No. Particulars Amount [in Rs.] 1. Pain and Sufferings 1,00,000/- 2. Medical expenses 5,30,800/- 3. Attendant expenses, Nourishment, Conveyance 30,000/- 4. Loss of income 24,000/- 5. Loss of future income 1,84,320/- 6. Loss of amenities 1,00,000/- Total 9,69,120/- 15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the prevailing rate of interest during the relevant time, this Court deems it appropriate to award interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the awarded compensation amount from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. 16. Hence, the following: ORDER 1. Both the appeals are allowed in part. 2. The total compensation awarded by the MACT is modified and enhanced to Rs.9,69,120/- [Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand One Hundred and Twenty only] as against Rs.9,25,160/- [Rupees Nine Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand One Hundred and Sixty only] with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. 3. The liability, apportionment and disbursement shall be in terms of the order of the MACT. 4. 3. The liability, apportionment and disbursement shall be in terms of the order of the MACT. 4. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the jurisdictional Tribunal for disbursement.