Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 642 (KAR)

Balyanaika v. Mohammed Yusuf Sheik And Another

2020-03-05

ALOK ARADHE, M.NAGAPRASANNA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) has been filed by the injured - claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.04.2016 in MVC.No.1241/2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Arsikere (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that, on 22.02.2014, at about 6.00 p.m., when the appellant was proceeding in Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.KA-13/A-7828 near Chowri Koppalu Forest Area, the driver of the Canter bearing registration No.KA-25/D-3385 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle of the appellant. As a result of which, the accident occurred. The inmates of the vehicle sustained simple and grievous injuries and one Krishnanaika died on the spot. The appellant claimant sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was shifted to the hospital, wherein, he took treatment. The appellant claimant underwent operation and his right leg was amputated. The appellant - claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the claimant was aged about 26 years at the time of accident and was an agriculturist earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. It was pleaded that on account of the amputation of his right leg, the income of the appellant is substantially reduced and he has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 70% to the whole body. Accordingly, the claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- along with interest. 3. On receipt of notice, respondent No.1 did not appear and he was placed exparte. Respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed written statement by contending that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties namely, the driver, owner and the insurer of the Tata Ace vehicle. It was pleaded that the Tribunal of the Canter vehicle did not possess driving license at the time of the accident. There was a delay of 5 days in lodging the complaint but it admitted the insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle was in force at the time of the accident. It was also pleaded that there was contributory negligence on the part of both drivers of the vehicles. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. 5. It was also pleaded that there was contributory negligence on the part of both drivers of the vehicles. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. 5. The appellant claimant in order to prove his case, examined herself as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely, Exs.P.1 to P.9. Respondent No.1 neither adduced any oral evidence nor produced any document as exhibits. One Dr. Ravi was examined as CW.1 through Court Commissioner. 6. 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 namely, the Canter vehicle by which the appellants sustained injuries and suffered from permanent disability. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.14,53,900/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in taking the notional income of the appellant at Rs.8,000/- p.m. whereas, the Tribunal ought to have taken at Rs.8,500/- p.m. He has also urged that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of amenities, conveyance charges as well as food and nourishment charges is on the lower side. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has supported the judgment and award passed by the Claims Tribunal and has submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 10. The only issue that arises for our consideration in this appeal is only with regard to the quantum of compensation. 11. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the appellant was aged 26 years. The appellant has not adduced any evidence with regard to the income. The accident has taken place in the year 2014. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, since the accident has taken place in the year 2014, the notional income of the appellant claimant is taken at Rs.8,500/- p.m. As per the evidence of CW.1 Dr. Ravi, the appellant had sustained permanent disability to the extent of 70%. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, since the accident has taken place in the year 2014, the notional income of the appellant claimant is taken at Rs.8,500/- p.m. As per the evidence of CW.1 Dr. Ravi, the appellant had sustained permanent disability to the extent of 70%. Taking into account the age of the appellant who was 26 years at the relevant point of time, the multiplier of 17 and the disability at 70%, the appellant shall be entitled to an enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.12,13,800/- on account of loss of future income. 12. Due to the injuries sustained by the appellant, he could not attend to his agricultural operations for a period of 2 months as his right leg was amputated. Therefore, we award a sum of Rs.17,000/- under the head of loss of income during laid up period. The amount of compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded towards food and nourishment is also on the lower side. Thus, we enhance to Rs.25,000/- under the said head. Similarly, the amount of compensation awarded under the head conveyance charges is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. In addition, a sum of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal on account of loss of amenities, is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. 13. Thus, in all, the appellant is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.15,66,300/-. It is needless to state that the aforesaid amount of enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment is made. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.