Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Karnataka heard three miscellaneous first appeals arising from a common judgment and award dated 31 December 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga in MVC Nos.178/2013 and 179/2013. The appeals were filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. One appeal was by the injured claimant in MVC No.179/2013, another by the injured claimant in MVC No.178/2013 seeking enhancement, and the third by the insurance company challenging the award in MVC No.178/2013. The accident occurred on 24 September 2012 at about 7.00 a.m. when the petitioners were travelling in a car from Chitradurga to Bengaluru along with their child. Near Billanakote on Tumkur–Bengaluru NH-4 Road, a lorry bearing registration No.PB-05/M-2930 driven rashly and negligently hit their car. The car fell to the left side of road; both petitioners sustained grievous injuries and fractures. They were shifted to M.S. Ramaiah Harsha Medical College, Bengaluru, where they underwent surgery and were treated as in-patients and out-patients. Claim petitions were filed separately under Section 166 of the MV Act. Petitioner No.1 claimed to be an engineer in IBM with monthly salary of Rs.80,000; petitioner No.2 a computer science engineer earning Rs.20,000. The driver cum owner did not appear and was proceeded ex parte. The insurance company contested, denying age, occupation, earnings, and involvement of lorry, though it did not dispute existence of insurance policy. The tribunal framed common issues on negligence and quantum. Petitioners examined themselves, doctor through court commissioner, and eyewitness; 71 documents marked including FIR, complaint, spot mahazar, IMV report, charge sheet, wound certificates, medical bills, disability certificates, educational certificates. Insurance company examined assistant manager and marked policy and postal endorsement. Tribunal found negligence proved against lorry driver based on police records. It awarded Rs.5,88,600 to petitioner No.1 under heads pain and suffering, loss of opportunities, medical expenses, loss of amenities, diet and transportation and attendant charges; and Rs.2,89,400 to petitioner No.2 under loss of future income due to disability, pain and sufferings, diet etc., medical expenses. Interest at 7.5% per annum from date of petition till deposit. In appeal, the claimants argued for enhanced compensation: petitioner No.2 contended notional income should be Rs.7,000 per month as per KSLSA schedule for 2012 instead of Rs.5,000; no amounts awarded for loss of income during laid-up period, future medical expenses, loss of amenities; and future prospects not included. Insurer argued no proof of income, graduation certificate does not reflect income and loss of future income should be based on notional income but did not dispute Rs.7,000 notional income for 2012. The available judgment excerpt ends during discussion of petitioner No.2's injuries; her wound certificate showed fracture of shaft humerus right side, radial nerve injury with wrist drop, CLW over wrist and mild head injury; doctor opined first two injuries grievous; she was hospitalized for 10 days. The final decision on enhancement and insurance appeal is not included in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Compensation - Negligence - Liability for rash and negligent driving - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - Tribunal examined FIR, complaint, spot mahazar, IMV report and charge sheet and found injuries were caused by rash and negligent driving of lorry driver; driver cum owner was ex parte and insurance policy existence was not disputed; Held negligence was proved against driver (Paras 6-10). B) Motor Accident Compensation - Quantum of Compensation - Assessment under distinct heads - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 166 and 173 - Tribunal awarded Rs.2,89,400 to petitioner No.2 and Rs.5,88,600 to petitioner No.1 with interest at 7.5% per annum; both claimants sought enhancement and insurer challenged award in MVC No.178/2013; Held compensation needs reassessment considering notional income, disability, future prospects and medical expenses (Paras 11-15). C) Motor Accident Compensation - Notional Income - KSLSA schedule for 2012 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Claimant argued notional income should be Rs.7,000 per month as per KSLSA schedule for 2012, not Rs.5,000; insurer did not dispute Rs.7,000; Held notional income for 2012 was Rs.7,000 per month (Paras 14-15). D) Motor Accident Compensation - Future Prospects - Inclusion in loss of future income - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Claimant contended Tribunal omitted future prospects while computing loss of future income; available excerpt ends during discussion of injuries and disability; Held contention raised and requires consideration while enhancing compensation (Paras 14-16.1).
Issue of Consideration
Enhancement of compensation; correctness of notional income; addition of future prospects; entitlement to loss of income during laid-up period, future medical expenses, and loss of amenities; insurer's challenge to quantum in MVC No.178/2013
Final Decision
Not mentioned - the provided judgment text ends before the final operative order
Law Points
- Negligence proved by police records under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- notional income for 2012 is Rs.7
- 000 per month as per KSLSA schedule
- future prospects to be considered while computing loss of future income
- compensation under distinct heads including pain and suffering
- loss of opportunities
- medical expenses
- loss of amenities
- appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act
- existence of insurance policy not disputed
