Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1410 (KAR)

Bajaj Finance Ltd. v. Recovery Officer

2022-10-28

H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

body2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. This appeal under Sec. 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 12/10/2018 passed by the MACT, Hassan in MVC No.2036/2017. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 10/9/2017 at about 06.00 p.m., the claimant along with her friends was traveling in the KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-13-F1884. When it reached near Hattavara Gate, the driver of the said Bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized. 3. The claimant filed a petition under Sec. 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that she spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. 4. On service of notice, the respondent has appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. The age, avocation and income of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant herself was examined as PW-1 and Dr.Abdul Basheer was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P23. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 but no documents were marked. 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 by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.92, 711.00 along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. and directed the Corporation to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. 6. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.92, 711.00 along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. and directed the Corporation to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. 6. The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions: Firstly, at the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 19 years. She was studying in Diploma and she was also assisting her parents in agricultural activities and earning Rs.15, 000.00 per month, but the Tribunal has not granted any compensation for 'loss of future income'. Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-2. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 20% to spine. Due to the disability, she was unable to do her day to day work. But the Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation towards 'loss of future income'. Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. She was treated as inpatient for a period of 3 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, she was not in a position to discharge her regular work. She has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side. Hence, she sought for allowing the appeal. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Corporation has raised following counter contentions: Firstly, even though the claimant claims that she was earning Rs.15, 000.00 per month, she has not produced any documents to establish her income. Since she was a Diploma student, there is no loss of income. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not granted any compensation under the head of 'loss of future income'. Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. She was inpatient in the hospital only for a period of 3 days. Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference. Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. She was inpatient in the hospital only for a period of 3 days. Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference. Thirdly, in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others -v- Venkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24/8/2020), the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 8% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher side. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 19 years. She was studying in final year Diploma and she was also assisting her parents in the agricultural activities. Considering the evidence of PW-1 and injuries suffered by her, I am of the opinion that the monthly income of the claimant can be assessed as Rs.11, 000.00. Even as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2017, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.11, 000.00 p.m. Therefore, the monthly income of the claimant is taken as Rs.11, 000.00. As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained compression fracture spin L-1 vertibra. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 20% to spine. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, I am of the opinion that the whole body disability at 6%. The claimant is aged about 19 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is 18'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1, 42, 560.00 (Rs.11, 000.00*12*18*6%) on account of 'loss of future income'. The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of one month. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1, 42, 560.00 (Rs.11, 000.00*12*18*6%) on account of 'loss of future income'. The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of one month. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.11, 000.00 (Rs.11, 000.00*1 month) under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. She was treated as inpatient for more than 3 days in the hospital. She has suffered lot of pain during treatment and she has to suffer with the disability stated by the doctor throughout her life. Considering the same, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.25, 000.00 to Rs.30, 000.00 and under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.35, 000.00 to Rs.40, 000.00. Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable. 10. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation: 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2, 56, 271.00 as against Rs.92, 711.00 awarded by the Tribunal. In view of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of 'MS.JOYEETA BOSE', the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum. The Corporation is directed to deposit enhanced compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.