IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A. NO.6642 OF 2012 (MV) C/W M.F.A. NO.4781 OF 2012 (MV) IN M.F.A. No.6642/2012 BETWEEN Smt. Rathnamma, W/o Krishnappa, Aged about 52 years, Residing at Bagalur Village, Sulibele Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.
... Appellant (By Sri.Jagadeesh G Kumbar Advocate for Sri.N.Gopalakrishna, Advocate) AND 1. Sri. Ravindra, S/o Chikkanarayanappa, Major in Age, Residing at Shettivarahalli Village, Velagalaburre Post, Kolar Taluk and District.
2. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, 5th Floor, Krushi Bhavan, Nrupathunga Road, Hudson Circle, Bangalore – 560 001. By its Manager.
... Respondents (By Sri.S.Krishna Kishore, Advocate for R2) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 28.02.2010 passed in MVC No.8682/2010 on the file of VIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT – V, Bangalore, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
IN M.F.A. No.4781/2012 BETWEEN United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, 5th Floor, KrIshi Bhavan, Nrupathunga Road, Hudson Circle, Bangalore – 560 009.
Represented By its Manager P.Navamany.
... Appellant (By Sri. S.Krishna Kishore, Advocate) AND 1. Smt. Rathnamma, W/o Krishnappa, Aged about 52 years, Resident of Bagalur Village, Sulibele Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District – 560 261.
2. Sri. Ravindra, S/o Chikkanarayanappa, Major, Resident of Shettivarahalli Village, Velagalaburre Post, Kolar Taluk and District – 561 021.
... Respondents (By Sri. Jagadeesh G Kumbar Advocate for Sri.N.Gopalakrishna, Advocate for R1; R2 is served) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 28.02.2010 passed in MVC No.8682/2010 on the file of Member, MACT – V, VIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, awarding a compensation of Rs.46,000/- with interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
These MFAs coming on for further hearing, this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT These appeals are directed against the judgment and award passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.
2. MFA No.6642/2012 is filed by the appellant – claimant aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. MFA 4781/2012 is filed by the appellant – Insurance Co. aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, seeking to set aside the same on the ground that the appellant - Insurance Co. is not liable to satisfy the award and pay compensation to the claimant.
4. MVC No.8682/2010 is filed by one Rathnamma, wife of Krishnappa, seeking compensation in respect of injuries suffered by her in a road traffic accident occurred on 18.09.2010, when she was walking on the left side of Kolar Antharagange road, at about 9.00 p.m. When she reached a place near railway track, an Ambassador car bearing registration No. KA-07-C-189 driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against her, because of which, she sustained injuries and presented a petition for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
5. The matter was contested. Considering the accident, aspect of negligence, injuries and disability, and related factors, the learned Member allowed the claim petition in part and granted compensation of Rs.46,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, to the claimant – Rathnamma under various heads.
6. In so far as the injuries are concerned, it is stated that the claimant sustained the following injuries:
1. Compression fracture of L1 vertebra without neurological deficit 2. Contusion over left gluteal area The doctor who treated the claimant has stated that the claimant had suffered 40% compression fracture of L.1 vertebra and assessed the disability at 20% to whole body.
7. This matter is listed under `further hearing’.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Co. – insurer of offending vehicle, Sri. S.Krishna Kishore would submit, the injuries are not bonafide and the claimant has not suffered any disability. She was not earning any income. In the circumstances, she is not entitled for compensation. Further, the driver of the offending vehicle had only non-transport vehicle driving licence and no cause of action to claim compensation arises in a case where vehicle was driven by a driver who had driving licence for LMV – non-transport and did not have driving licence for LMV – transport vehicle. Thus, it is the case of the Insurance Co. that the claimant is not entitled for compensation and the one awarded has to be set aside.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant, Sri. Jagadeesh submits that the break-up of the compensation reveals that the compensation awarded under the relevant heads are under assessed. Further, the learned Member has not considered awarding of compensation under the head of ‘loss of future income’. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal by enhancing the compensation.
10. In the over all circumstances of the case, first of all, it is necessary to mention that from the law laid down in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668, it is clear that in case of light motor vehicle, the consideration is given to the total weight of 7,500 kgs. and the distinction between driving licence for transport vehicle and driving licence for non-transport vehicle is not considered.
11. Thus, in so far as the licence to drive transport light motor vehicle is there, the same holds good for driving non-transport vehicle also.
12. Though compensation awarded under various heads are properly assessed, in so far as compensation under the head ‘loss of future income’ is concerned, it is left out.
13. The monthly income considered by the learned Member is Rs.3,000/- per month (obvious by looking at the compensation amount of Rs.6,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘loss of income during laid up period’ for two months). Further, the functional disability is taken at 20%. The claimant was aged 52 years at the time of occurrence of the accident. Hence, multiplier applicable is ‘11’. Thus, compensation under the head of ‘loss of future income’ works out to Rs.79,200/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 20/100 x 11) and the same is awarded.
14. Towards ‘future medical expenses’, the learned Member should have considered granting compensation of Rs.25,000/-, in the absence of which, the judgment is incomplete. Hence, I award Rs.25,000/- under the said head.
15. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the fair and just compensation awarded to the claimant is as under :
i) Pain and suffering Rs.15,000/-
ii) Medical expenses Rs.15,000/-
iii) Loss of income during laid up period Rs. 6,000/-
iv) Loss of amenities and unhappiness Rs.10,000/-
v) Loss of future income Rs.79,200/-
vi) Future medical expenses Rs.25,000/-
Total Rs.1,50,200/-
Less : Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 46,000/-
Additional compensation Rs.1,04,200/-
16. The learned Member should have fixed the total compensation at Rs.1,50,200/-. As the same has not been done, the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs,1,04,200/-, payable by the Insurance Co. To the said extent, the judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified.
17. Accordingly, appeal preferred by the claimant in MFA 6642/2012 is allowed in part. Appeal preferred by the Insurance Co. in MFA 4781/2012 is rejected and additional compensation of Rs.1,04,200/- with interest at 6% per annum is ordered to be paid by the Insurance Co. to the claimant – Rathnamma and the judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to that effect.
18. The compensation of Rs.1,50,200/-, including the enhanced compensation, together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization, is to be paid by the Insurance Co. to the claimant within four weeks from the date of obtaining certified copy of the order.
Amount in deposit be transferred to the Tribunal.
Records to be sent back to the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE Mgn/-