1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.5251 OF 2013(MV)
BETWEEN:
ANJANI
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF
HOSA RANGAPURA VILLAGE
CHITRADURGA TALUK AND
DISTRICT-577 501.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HAREESH, ADV. FOR
SRI. B.M. SIDDAPPA, ADV. )
AND
1. S. MARULASIDDAPPA
S/O SOMASEKHARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/O KONDAPURA VILLAGE
HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577526.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
2
B.M.COMPLEX, LAKSHMI BAZAR
CHITRADURGA-577 501.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.LAKSHMI NARASAPPA, ADV. FOR
SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED: 19.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.611/2011 ON
THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JDUGE, MACT-5, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 19.1.2013 passed by the 1st Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT-V, Chitradurga in MVC 611/2011.
2. Brief facts of the case:
On 14.9.2011 at about 7.45 p.m. when the claimant was traveling in a motorcycle bearing 3 Registration No.KA-17-U-1567 from Hosarangapura towards Kondapura as a pillion rider near Bijanal Basavapura Gate, at that time, the rider of the said motorcycle rode the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident. As a result, the claimant fell down and he sustained injuries and immediately he was shifted to the hospital. After recovering from injuries, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. In order to support his case, he examined himself as PW-1, and Dr.G.Narsappa, as PW-2, and produced and marked 72 documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company examined one witness as RW-1 and produced and marked 2 documents. After appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.2,29,600/- with interest at 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimant. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 4
3. The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, the claimant claims that he was doing agricultural work and earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum, but the Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant as merely as Rs.4,000/- p.m. Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered loss of vision of left eye to the extent of 75% to 80% and right eye to the extent of 45% to 50% and permanent loss of vision will be 50% to 60% compared to whole body. But the Tribunal has erred in taking the whole body disability at only 15%.
Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 13 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain 5 during treatment. Considering the same, the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of amenities' is on the lower side. Further, the Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation under the head of 'loss of income during laid-up period' and 'incidental expenses'.
Hence, the learned counsel for the claimant prays for allowing the appeal.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter- contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was an agriculturist and earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum, he has not produced any documents to establish his income. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.
Secondly, PW-2, the doctor in his cross examination has admitted that the defect can be 6 cured by using specs. The defect is only to the left eye. The Tribunal considering the same has rightly taken the whole body disability at 15%.
Thirdly, considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable compensation.
Hence, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the records.
6. It is not in dispute that the claimant had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained comminuted fracture of frontal bone extending b/l nasal, left ethmoid and to the floor of anterior cranial 7 fossa and right basisphenoid, fracture of left maxillary sinus, fracture of left squamour temporal.
7. The claimant claims that he was doing agricultural work and earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month. But the same is not established by producing any documents. Therefore, the Tribunal is left with no other option, but to asses the income of the claimant notionally. In catena of cases, this Court has relied upon the Chart prepared by the Lok Adalath for the purpose of deciding the matters at Lok Adalath. According to the Chart, for an accident of the year, 2011, the income should be taken notionally as Rs.6,500/- per month. Therefore, this Court enhances the claimant's income from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.6,500/- per month.
8. As per the testimony of the claimant coupled with that of the evidence of PW-2, the nature 8 of injuries suggests that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 3 months. Further, the claimant has stated that he was not in a position to do any manual work. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.19,500/- (Rs.6,500 X 3 months) is awarded under the head of 'loss of income during laid up period'.
9. The claimant is aged about 22 years at the time of accident, and the multiplier applicable to his age group is 18. His income is assessed at Rs.6,500/- per month. PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered loss of vision of left eye to the extent of 75% to 80% and right eye to the extent of 45% to 50% and permanent loss of vision will be 50% to 60% compared to whole body. Considering the nature of injuries mentioned in the wound certificate and evidence of the claimant and the doctor, the whole body disability can be taken at 40% as against 15% taken by the Tribunal. Therefore, 9 the 'loss of future income' works out to Rs.5,61,600/- (6,500 x 12 x 18 x 40%) and it is awarded as against Rs.1,29,600/- awarded by the Tribunal.
10. Considering the nature of injuries and an amount of discomfort and unhappiness, the claimant has to undergo in his life, this Court enhances the compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of amenities'.
11. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads remains undisturbed.
12. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:
As awarded As awarded Compensation under by the by this different Heads Tribunal Court (Rs.) (Rs.) Pain and sufferings 50,000 50,000 Medical expenses 40,000 40,000 Loss of income during 0 19,500 laid up period Loss of amenities 10,000 40,000 10 Loss of future income 129,600 561,600 Total 229,600 711,100 The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.7,11,100/-.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6% p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
JUDGE DM