1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
MFA NO.7527 OF 2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED SULTHAN SHERIFF @ SHABAZ
S/O LATE MOHAMMED ISHQ SHERIFF
AGED 25 YEARS, R/AT #59, 3RD CROSS
POPULAR COLONY, BOMMANAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 068 ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SRIDHAR D.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.
9TH FLOOR, THE ESTATE
#121, DICKENSON ROAD
MG ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 042
REP. BY ITS MANAGER
2. M/S SAIRAKSHA DAIRY PRODUCTS
PVT. LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER
PLOT NO.209, BOMMASANDRA
JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 105 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.M.VENKATESH, ADV. FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
2
AWARD DATED 28.03.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.8287/2016,
ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE & XIX ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-
23) PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENAHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
M.I.ARUN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 28.03.2018 passed in MVC No.8287/2016 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal'), the petitioner therein has preferred this appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
That on 30.10.2016, at about 12.45 a.m. on NH7 near Electronic City toll, Bengaluru city, the driver of Bolero Maxi truck plus bearing registration No.KA-51/D- 7514 belonging to respondent no.2, which is insured with respondent no.1, driving rashly and negligently dashed against a parked Qualis Car bearing registration No.KA-03/ 3 MA-0886. As a result of which, the petitioner who was standing behind the parked vehicle struck in between the two vehicles sustained fracture injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Live 100 hospital and then shifted to St.John's Medical College Hospital for treatment. He took treatment as an inpatient and undergone surgery for fracture injuries. Hence, he preferred MVC No.8287/2016 before the Tribunal and claimed a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.
4. After service of notice, the respondents appeared through their Counsel and denied the liability.
5. The petitioner, to prove his case, examined himself and two other witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P16. The respondents did not examine any witness nor got marked any exhibits.
6. Based on the pleadings and the evidence let in, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,59,678/- to the petitioner payable with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Not satisfied by the same, the petitioner has preferred this appeal. 4
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. The case of the petitioner is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is on the lower side and has sought for enhancement of compensation.
9. Per contra, respondent no.1 has justified the order passed by the Tribunal and has sought for dismissal of the appeal.
10. The accident happened in the year 2016. At the time of the accident, the petitioner was aged 23 years. The Tribunal has taken the permanent disability suffered by the petitioner at 9%. There is no dispute as to these facts and no reason is provided by either of the parties as to why the same needs to be changed. The petitioner has not produced any document to prove his income. The Tribunal has adopted a notional income at Rs.8,000/- per month. We find it to be on the lower side. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in consultation with the Insurance Companies, the notional income for the year 2016 is fixed at Rs.9,500/- per month. 5 Accordingly, the same needs to be enhanced. The age of the petitioner being 23 years at the time of the accident, a multiplier of 18 needs to be adopted. Hence, on the ground of loss of future earnings, the petitioner shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,84,680/- [Rs.9,500/- X 12 X 18 X 9%]. No amounts have been awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities and loss of income during laid up period due to the injuries suffered by the petitioner. Hence, we deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.28,500/- towards loss of income during laid up period as the petitioner was not in a position to earn anything for a period of three months. Further, towards pain and suffering Rs.40,000/- is awarded, we deem it appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.50,000/-. A sum of Rs.2,29,178/- is awarded towards medical expenses, we deem it appropriate to retain the same. Similarly on the grounds of conveyance, food and nourishment charges Rs.25,000/- is awarded and future medical expenses Rs.10,000/- is awarded and we deem it appropriate to retain the same. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,67,358/- as against Rs.4,59,678/- awarded by the 6 Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
11. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.5,67,358/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Eight only) as against Rs.4,59,678/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.
iii) The insurance company shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.
iv) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability and disbursement remains intact.7
v) The modified compensation amount shall be disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal.
vi) Draw modified award accordingly.
vii) All pending I.As. stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE hkh.