Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 567 (KAR)

Santhosh Kumar S. v. Shashikumar H. And Others

2020-02-27

H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 16.01.2015 passed by the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge and V MACT (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for short) at Davanagere in MVC No.428/2014, whereby the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.2,77,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.02.2014 at about 7.00 p.m., when claimant was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-17-EA-7432 from Davanagere to Hosanayakanahalli, on the left side of Hadadi Road, near Shivakumaraswamy Badavane, at that time, the rider of another motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-17-EE-8249 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the claimants motor cycle. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to C.G. Hospital, Davanagere. After first aid treatment, he was shifted to SNR Hospital, Davanagere, wherein he took treatment as inpatient from 17.02.2014 to 25.02.2014 and underwent surgery to his right leg. After recovering from injuries, the claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the MACT, Davanagere in MVC No.428/2014. In order to prove his case, he examined himself as PW.1 and examined Dr. Mallikarjuna Reddy as PW.2 and got marked 45 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.45. On the other hand, respondent-Insurance Company has not examined any witnesses but got marked one document as Ex.R.1. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.2,77,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. Sri. Rudrappa .P, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that at the time of the accident, claimant was aged about 26 years and he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal is not justified in taking the notional income of the claimant as Rs.6,000/- per month. Secondly, he contended that claimant examined Dr. Mallikarjuna Reddy as PW.2, who has deposed that claimant has suffered 25% permanent disability to the right lower limb and he has to suffer with this disability throughout his life. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities is on the lower side. Secondly, he contended that claimant examined Dr. Mallikarjuna Reddy as PW.2, who has deposed that claimant has suffered 25% permanent disability to the right lower limb and he has to suffer with this disability throughout his life. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities is on the lower side. Thirdly, he contended that claimant was inpatient for a period of 08 days. He has sustained comminuted fracture of upper tibia and comminuted fracture of upper end of fibula. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards attendant charges and other incidental charges is on the lower side. Fourthly, he contended that due to the accident, claimant has sustained above said injuries and he has undergone surgery. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation for future medical expenses. Hence, he prays for enhancement of compensation. 4. Per contra, Smt. Geetha Raj, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, he has not produced any documents to establish the same. Secondly, she contended that the overall compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and proper. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the judgment and award. 6. It is not in dispute that claimant had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 17.02.2014 due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-17-EE-8249. Even though claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, he has not produced any documents to establish the same. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was left with no other option, but to asses the income of the deceased notionally. While assessing the notional income, the Tribunal has considered the notional income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. In catena of cases, this Court has relied upon the Chart prepared by Lok Adalath for the purpose of deciding the matters. According to the Chart, for an accident of the year, 2014, the income should be taken notionally as Rs.8,500/- per month. Therefore, this Court enhances the income of the claimant from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.8,500/- per month. 7. At the time of the accident, claimant was aged about 26 years and the multiplier applicable to his age group is 17. According to the Chart, for an accident of the year, 2014, the income should be taken notionally as Rs.8,500/- per month. Therefore, this Court enhances the income of the claimant from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.8,500/- per month. 7. At the time of the accident, claimant was aged about 26 years and the multiplier applicable to his age group is 17. The Tribunal has rightly assessed whole body disability to an extent of 12%. Accordingly, the loss of income due to disabilities are reassessed as follows: 8500 x 12 x 17 x 12/100 = 2,08,080/- 8. Since the income of the claimant is enhanced from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.8,500/- per month, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the head loss of income during laid up period as against Rs.18,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 9. Due to the accident, the claimant had sustained comminuted fracture of upper tibia and comminuted fracture of upper end of fibula. He examined Dr. Mallikarjuna Reddy as PW.2, who has deposed that claimant has suffered permanent disability of 25% to right lower limb. He has to suffer with this disability and unhappiness throughout his life. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained, deposition of the parties and wound certificate at Ex.P.5, I am of the opinion that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 10. The claimant was inpatient for a period of 08 days. He underwent surgery to his right leg. As per the evidence of PW-2, the claimant requires to undergo surgery for removal of implants. Taking into consideration the injuries sustained by the claimant, deposition of doctor, wound certificate at Ex.P.5 and discharge card at Ex.P.36, I am of the opinion that claimant is entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards future medical expenses. 11. Even after discharge from the Hospital, claimant took treatment as out patient. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries, age and avocation of the claimant, I am of the opinion that claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards attendant charges and other incidental charges. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part. 11. Even after discharge from the Hospital, claimant took treatment as out patient. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries, age and avocation of the claimant, I am of the opinion that claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards attendant charges and other incidental charges. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified as under: Compensation under different Heads As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) As awarded by this Court (Rs.) Loss of future earnings 1,46,880/- 2,08,080/- Pain and suffering 55,000/- 55,000/- Loss of amenities and discomfort in life 10,000/- 25,000/- Medical expenses 45,000/- 45,000/- Attendant charges and other incidental charges - 15,000/- Loss of income during laid up period 18,000/- 25,000/- Future medical expenses - 15,000/- Total 2,77,000/- 3,88,080/- The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount, along with an interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the amount in favour of the appellant after due verification.