Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 11332
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Dr. H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, Mr. Ramachandra D. Huddar, JJ
Mr. Manu K. Muhiyudin – Appellant
Versus
Mr. Mohamed Hussain – Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 9519 of 2013 (MV-I) | MVC No.2672/2011
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. Siji Malayil
For the Respondents: Sri. Ravi Shankar S Samprathi
Compensation for road traffic accidents must reflect adequate measures of pain, suffering, and anticipated future earning losses, requiring substantial evidential support for claims made.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173(1) - Enhancement of compensation - Appeal filed against the Tribunal's order awarding Rs.25,08,070/- for injuries sustained in a road accident leading to amputation of left arm - Claimant argued for compensation to be enhanced to Rs.9,37,50,000/- citing loss of future earnings and disability. Tribunal held that evidence established injuries due to rash driving but compensation inadequately quantified. Court found additional grounds for enhanced compensation including pain and future loss of income. (Paras 1-41)
(B) Judicial review - In assessing claims, the court must ensure that compensatory awards sufficiently address pain, suffering and loss of amenities resulting from the accident and resultant effects on future employment prospects. (Paras 17, 21, 36)
(C) Compensation Determination - The court emphasized that prior earnings, qualification, and future potentials must be rigorously evidenced to uphold claims for loss of earning capacity. (Paras 29-39)
Facts of the case:
The claimant sustained grievous injuries in a vehicular accident resulting in left arm amputation, impacting his career trajectory and proposed earnings significantly. The initial award was deemed grossly inadequate based on medical evidence and the nature of injuries.
Findings of Court:
Compensation was increased to Rs.27,67,070/- from Rs.25,08,070/- to adequately reflect suffering and future loss.
Issues: The key issues were entitlement for compensation enhancement and adequacy of prior award.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that while injuries were corroborated, the concerns raised regarding pre-accident income and future opportunities necessitated reevaluation, ensuring fair compensation reflective of both present suffering and future incapacitation.
Result: Appeal allowed in part, compensation modified to Rs.27,67,070/-.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claimant seeks enhancement of compensation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondents admit vehicle ownership; deny negligence. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments about claimant's income and future prospects. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 4. medical evidence supports claimant's injury. (Para 21 , 22 , 24) |
| 5. court enhances compensation totals for loss of amenities and income. (Para 37 , 39 , 40) |
| 6. court's final decision and modified compensation order. (Para 41) |
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the VII Addl.Small Causes Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (SCCH-3), Bengaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), by its judgment and award dated 27.04.2013, passed in M.V.C.No.2672/2011.
2. The summary of the case of the present appellant as claimant before the Tribunal was that, on the date 27.02.2011, at about 2.45 a.m., while he was traveling from Goa to Bengaluru in Sea Bird company's Bus bearing registration No.KA-01-D-8440 and when the bus reached near Toll Naka on Puna-Bengaluru road, Harihara, on 28.02.2011, it dashed against a Lorry coming from the opposite direction. Due to the said road traffic accident, the bus fell on the site of the road in a ditch. Due to the said rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus resulting in the road traffic accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to S.S. Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Center, Davanagere, where he was given first-aid treatment and then shifted to Columbia Hospital, at Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient.
3. The claimant has further stated in his claim petition that he was working as a Project Trainee in Honeywell Technology Solution Lab Pvt. Ltd., and drawing a salary of `3,25,000/- p.a. At the time of the accident, he was a Trainee in University of West Scotland. After completion of Master's degree in Scotland, he would have got a job in some of the leading Companies dealing in Sensor Technologies with his Honeywell expertise and would have earned `48,00,000/- p.a., however, due to the accident, his future is spoiled. With this, the claimant has claimed in total a compensation of `9,37,50,000/- from respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 before the Tribunal arraying them as driver, owner and insurer of the alleged offending bus respectively.
4. In response to the notice served upon them, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 appeared through their counsel and filed their statement of objections. Upon the memo filed by the claimant, the petition as against respondent No.1 came to be dismissed.
5. The respondent No.2 in his statement of objections while admitting his ownership over the offending motor vehicle Bus bearing registration No.KA- 01-D-8440, contended that the bus was insured with respondent No.3 at the relevant point of time and the policy was in force. He denied that the motor vehicle accident was at the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, but, it was uncontended that the accident has occurred due to the negligence on the part of driver of the Lorry bearing registration No.KA-22-A-6977.
6. The respondent No.3 - Insurance Company in its statement of objections admitting the issuance of insurance policy and insurance coverage of offending motor Bus bearing registration No.KA-01-D-8440, however, restricted its liability to the terms and conditions of the policy. It also contended that the accident in question has occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Lorry. Both respondent Nos.2 and 3 have denied the alleged age, income, avocation of the claimant.
7. Before the Tribunal, the claimant got himself examined as PW-1 and got examined three witnesses as PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 and produced and got marked the documents from Exs.P-1 to P-37. On behalf of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were produced.
8. After analysing the evi
