Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 497 (KAR)

L. Eshwar v. Arijith Mandal

2021-03-25

ALOK ARADHE, M.G.S.KAMAL

body2021
JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. 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 claimant against the judgment dated 06.11.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 10.01.2012 at about 9.45 p.m., the injured claimant namely L.Eshwar was traveling on TVS bike bearing registration No.KA-05 EX-9720 and when he reached in front of Saravana Hotel on Hosur Lashkar road, a car bearing registration No.KA-03 MP-7283 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the vehicle of the claimant from behind. As a result of the aforesaid accident, claimant fell down and sustained acute traumatic brain injury. 3. The claimant thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car. It was further pleaded that on account of injuries, claimant was hospitalized at the first instance for a period from 11.01.2012 to 30.01.2012 and later from 13.03.2012 to 26.03.2012 i.e. for a period of 13 days. Thus, in all, claimant received treatment for a period of 33 days. The claimant claimed compensation to the extent of Rs.40,00,000/- along with interest. 4. Respondent No.1 owner filed written statement in which inter alia it was pleaded that the vehicle in question was insured with the Insurance Company at the time of accident and the driver had a valid driving licence. However, it was pleaded that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the claimant. The respondent No.2, in its statement of objection, inter alia admitted that the vehicle in question namely car was insured. It was further pleaded that the accident has taken place on account of sole negligence of injured claimant and the compensation granted by the Claims Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined himself as PW-1, Dr. Vineesh as PW-2 and Sharavana as PW-3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. The respondents neither examined any witness nor produced any documentary evidence. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined himself as PW-1, Dr. Vineesh as PW-2 and Sharavana as PW-3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. The respondents neither examined any witness nor produced any documentary evidence. 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 car by its driver. It was further held, that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.4,39,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that there is evidence of PW-2 from which it is evident that the claimant has sustained 40% of the neuro surgical disability. However, the aforesaid disability was not considered by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of loss of life expectancy and amount of compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges and loss of amenities is on the lower side. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that there is no evidence on record with regard to loss of income and the claimant has continued in his employment. It is further submitted that there is no medical evidence on record to show the loss of life expectancy and the amount awarded under various heads is just and proper and does not deserve any interference. 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The claimant, at the time of accident, was aged 36 years and was employed as Security Assistant in Foreigner Regional Registration office, BU of Immigration, No.55, Indiranagar, Bengaluru and was earning Rs.24,500/- p.m. It is not in dispute that after the accident, the claimant has continued in the employment and there is no evidence on record that on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident, the claimant has sustained any loss of income. The claimant has sustained the following injuries in the accident: 1. Traumatic left hemispheric subdural hematoma with mass effect. 2. The claimant has sustained the following injuries in the accident: 1. Traumatic left hemispheric subdural hematoma with mass effect. 2. Post head injury behavioural changes 3. Left fronto temporo parietal craniectomy defect 4. Bipolar affective disorder. 9. PW-2 has stated in his evidence that the claimant suffers mentally disability to the extent of 43%. It is pertinent to mention that the claimant is employed as a security guard and his work is of supervisory nature and therefore, with the mental disability to the extent of 43%, the claimant has continued in employment. Therefore, the question of awarding any compensation under the head of loss of future income does not arise. The claimant has been awarded a sum of Rs.1,26,000/- on account of medical expenses whereas he has been awarded a sum of Rs.1,42,500/- on account of loss of income during the period of treatment. However, taking into account the nature of injuries, we find that the amount under the head of pain and suffering is on the lower side and same is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. The claimant has remained inpatient for a total period of 30 days. Therefore, the amount of compensation awarded under the head of nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges to the extent of Rs.25,000/- each is on the lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs.40,000/- each. Taking into account the fact that the claimant has suffered mental disability to the extent of 43%, the amount awarded under the head of loss of amenities is on the lower side and same is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. PW-2 has not stated in his evidence that on account of injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident, there is any loss of life expectancy to the claimant. In the absence of any evidence on record, the amount of compensation under the aforesaid head cannot be enhanced. Thus, in all, the claimant is held entitled to a further sum of Rs.1,35,000/-. The aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount of compensation. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.