G.T. Sreenath V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Narendra Kumar

MFA/8915/2011

AI Insights

The case involves G.T. Sreenath, the appellant, who sought enhancement of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on October 29, 2007. The accident involved a lorry and was attributed to negligent driving. The initial compensation awarded by the Tribunal was contested for being insufficient, particularly regarding pain and suffering, medical expenses, and loss of future income. The High Court of Karnataka reviewed the evidence, including medical bills and hospital records, and found grounds to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 690591 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Motor Vehicles Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S V HEGDE MULKHAND; K SURYANARAYANA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: D R NAGARAJA; SPOORTHY HEGDE
• Keywords: Compensation Enhancement; Injuries; Medical expenses; Motor vehicle accident; Negligent driving; Loss of income; Future medical expenses
• Section: 173(1)

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF MAY 2013 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA MFA.No.8915/2011 (MV) BETWEEN: G.T.Sreenath S/o Thippereddy Aged about 45 years R/o Kurdihally village Challakere Tq Chitradurga Dist.-577522 ...APPELLANT (By Sri D.R.Nagaraja & Ms.Spoorthy Hegde, Advs.) AND: 1. M/s New India Assu.co.Ltd., By its Branch Manager Occ:Maganur Petrol bunk B.D.Road, Chitradurga-577501 2. Narendra Kumar S/o Sha Om Prakash Aged about 41 years, Owner of lorry No.HR-55/C-8074, R/o.No.102 VPO JHARSA District, Gurgaun Hariyana-122001. ...RESPONDENTS 2 (By Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, Advocate for R-1) Sri K.Suryanarayana Rao, Adv. accepts notice for (Vakalat not filed), Notice to R2 dispensed with v/o.18.3.13. This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 02.07.2011 passed in MVC.No.162/09 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Challakere, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation. This appeal coming on for Admission this day, N.KUMAR. J., delivered the following: J U D G M E N T This is a claimant’s appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. 2. The claimant-G.T.Sreenath is a B.E. Graduate who was running a poultry farm under the name and style of Sri Sai Raghava Poultry Farm, Madakeripura. On 29.10.2007, at about 6.00 a.m., he along with others were travelling in a car bearing registration No.KA-05/N-7545 in order to go to Shirdi Kshetra. While moving on NH-13 near Agasanala, a Lorry bearing registration No.HR-55/C-8074 came from Solapur direction and dashed against an oncoming vehicle bearing No.HR-63/A-3539, due to which, the Lorry HR- 3 63/A-3539 came in back direction and in turn, hit the car bearing No.KA-05/N-7545 from its hind side. On account of the accident, the claimant sustained injuries along with others. He was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Bijapur. After taking first aid, he was admitted to Sagar Appollo Hospital, Bangalore. After discharge he was also treated at City Central Hospital, Davanagere. Therefore, claimant preferred a claim petition claiming compensation in a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. 3. After service of notice, respondent no.2 remained absent and placed exparte. The first respondent contested the matter and filed objections. However, they did not dispute the accident nor the injuries sustained, but their case was that the accident did not occur on account of vehicle which was insured with them and therefore, they denied their liability to pay the compensation claimed by the petitioner. 4. As several claim petitions have been filed arising out of same accident, the Tribunal clubbed all the cases together 4 and recorded common evidence and disposed off the cases by a common order. 5. The Tribunal framed the following issues in the case. 1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he sustained injuries in the alleged RTA on 29-10-2007 at about 6-00 a.m. on N.H.13, 10 K.M away from Horthi P.S. towards South, due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.HR- 55/C-8074 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?. If so, at what quantum and from whom? 3. What order or award? 6. The claimant in order to substantiate the claim, got examined himself as PW.2 and produced exhibits P.1 to P.30. On behalf of respondent, two witnesses were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and got marked the documents at Ex.R1 to R4. 7. The Tribunal, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 5 offending lorry. Therefore, claimants have established their case and they are entitled to compensation. Thereafter, it considered the claim of the claimant with reference to the documentary evidence and the evidence of the Doctors and proceeded to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain, suffering, trauma and injuries, Rs.40,000/- towards medical and other incidental expenses like nutrition’s special diet, attendant charges etc., The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities to be enjoyed and Rs.23,400/- towards loss of future income due to disability at 10%. Thus, in all, a sum of Rs.1,23,400/- has been awarded to the claimant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned award contends, in the accident, the claimant has sustained fracture of seven ribs, apart from other fractures and hardly a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded under the head pain and suffering, which is on the lower side. In fact, the claimant spent about Rs.2,41,000/- towards medical expenses and has also produced the bills. But the same has been overlooked by the Tribunal and only a sum of 6 Rs.40,000/- has been awarded towards the probable medical expenses and attendant charges which is meager. The claimant who suffered fracture of seven ribs and other fractures, was admitted in the hospital as in-patient for nearly 55 days and a paltry sum of Rs.10,000/-is awarded towards loss of income during treatment period. He further submits that the claimant sustained grievous injuries and physical disability affecting his future income. An amount of Rs.23,400/- has been awarded towards future income taking his income at Rs.3,000/- per month is also on the lower side and the amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities is also on the lower side. Therefore, he seeks for enhancement of compensation under the above heads and to modify the impugned award. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance company submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and based on material available on record and thus, it does not call for interference. 10. In the light of the aforesaid facts and rival contentions, the point that arises for our consideration in 7 this appeal is, whether the compensation determined by the Tribunal is just and proper or does it call for any enhancement? 11. The facts are not in dispute. The claimant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, claimant has established actionable negligence. The Insurance Company has not challenged the award and hence it has attained finality. 12. Now, the evidence on record shows that the claimant sustained injuries all over the body, in particular, fracture of ribs on the right side, fracture of 1/3rd radius of ulna right, fracture of clavicle, fracture of C5 and C6 discausing, grievous injuries over forehead, fracture involving lamina of Atlas on both sides and articular pillar of axis on the right note, small fracture involving Antereo inferior aspect of C4 vertebra and spinous process of C7 vertebra noted and also he sustained grievous injury to vertebra and over chest. Ex.P17, the wound certificate 8 produced supports these injuries. That apart, X-rays have been produced, which also substantiate the said injuries in addition to oral evidence establishing this fact. Having regard to the nature of injuries and number of fractures, the Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- under the head pain and suffering which is on the lower side. In our view, the just compensation to be awarded under the aforesaid head would be Rs.1,00,000/-. We order accordingly. 13. The claimant was admitted to Apollo Hospital. He was in-patient and thereafter again he has been treated in the City Central Hospital, Davanagere. He was an in-patient for nearly 55 days. He is a B.E. Graduate, businessman running a poultry farm. Therefore, certainly he would have spent considerable amount towards attendant charges, nutrition and conveyance. Similarly, the documents produced in the case shows that he had purchased medicines. Taking into consideration these aspects, the Tribunal has awarded under this head Rs.40,000/-. The claimant contends that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the bills and receipts issued by the Apollo Hospital as well as City Central Hospital at Davanagere. We 9 have looked into those records. The Apollo Hospital has raised a Bill for Rs.60,879/-. The claimant has deposited Rs.50,000/- initially and at the time of discharge, the balance amount of Rs.10,879/- by cash. Thus in all the claimant has paid Rs.60,879/-. This amount has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Therefore, claimant is entitled to this amount. Though the claimant has produced the bills issued by the City Central Hospital Davanagere, the claimant has not produced any material to show the payment of said amount. It is in this context that the claimant has also registered himself under the `Yashaswini’ scheme which is meant for farmers and people who are residing in rural areas would be benefited under the scheme wherein the Government would bear the amount. In the absence of receipts being produced to show the payment of said bills, the Tribunal has drawn an inference that those bills are paid under `Yashaswini’ scheme. Therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant is not entitled to the amount mentioned in the said bills. In the facts of the case, the reasoning of the Tribunal is probable and reasonable and therefore, no case is made out to 10 interfere with the said finding. Therefore, as against an amount of Rs.40,000/-, we deem it proper to award Rs.1,00,879/- in all under the aforesaid head. 14. The claimant was in-patient for about 55 days in the hospitals. The compensation awarded under the head `loss of income’ having regard to the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the claimant must have been put to mental agony, trauma suffering etc., and he cannot enjoy life as he was enjoying prior to the accident, in this circumstance, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income during the treatment period is awarded. It is reasonable and do not call for any interference. 15. The claimant is an income tax assessee. He has income from several sources but there is nothing to show for having filed return of income separately. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.23,400/- under the head `loss of future income due to disability at 10%’. The Tribunal’s finding is just and calculation under this head is proper. However, the claimant’s business is no way affected by the injuries sustained by the claimant. He can continue with the same 11 business and in the absence of evidence to show that because of the accident, his income has suffered loss, the claimant is not entitled to any amount of compensation under the head `loss of future income’. But, the fact remains, he has sustained fracture of seven ribs apart from three other fractures, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant i.e. fractures at his age he has to put up with the same for several years. Certainly he cannot be the very same person as he was and he would not be able to be normal person in future. Under these circumstances, award of amount of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities is on the lower side. In our view, the claimant is entitled to compensation under the said head to Rs.50,000/-. 16. The Tribunal has not awarded amount of compensation towards future medical expenses. The evidence on record shows that grievous injuries i.e. 10 fractures and the treatment was spread over for about two years and therefore, a considerable amount has been spent towards medical expenses. Even though the injuries are cured in days to come, for passage of time, age catching up, certainly these injuries would create problems and require 12 future medical attendant. In that view, we award a sum of Rs.20.000/- under this head. 17. Thus the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation as under: Head Amount Rs. Ps. 1. Pain, sufferings, trauma & 1,00,000-00 Injuries 2. Probable medical and other 1,00,879-00 Incidental expenses like nutrition’s, Special diet attendant charges., 3. Loss of income during treatment 10,000-00 Period 4. Loss of amenities to be enjoyed in 50,000-00 Life 5. Loss of future income due to 23,400-00 Disability at 10% 6. Future Medical Expenses 20,000-00 -------------------------- TOTAL 3,04,279-00 ================= 18. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. In substitution of the award of the Tribunal, we award a sum of Rs.3,04,279-00 with interest at 6% p.a from the date of 13 claim petition till the payment. Parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Sk/- "