Karnataka High Court
K R Raju vs Mallikarjun on 30 July, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29973
MFA No. 2694 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2694 OF 2022(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
K.R. RAJU,
S/O RANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT KYATANAYAKANAHALLI,
KASABA HOBLI,
C.N. HALLI TALUK - 572 214.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHANTHARAJ K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MALLIKARJUN,
S/O LATE KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT KYATANAYAKANAHALLI ,
MUDENAHALLI POST,
Digitally
signed by KASABA HOBLI,
YAMUNA K L CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK - 572 214.
Location:
High Court of 2. TATA AIG INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
Karnataka BY ITS MANAGER,
PRESENT ADDRESS, NO.83,
2ND FLOOR, 7TH CROSS,
4TH 'B' BLOCK,
NEAR BDA COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 560 034.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DISPENSED,
VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2023)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29973
MFA No. 2694 of 2022
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.01.2022 PASSED IN MVC
NO.941/2017 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 12.01.2022 passed in MVC.No.941/2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Chikkanayakanahalli (for short 'the tribunal'). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the tribunal.
2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed before the Court. -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29973 MFA No. 2694 of 2022
4. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.2,04,400/- with interest at 6% per annum and directed the respondent - Insurance Company to pay the compensation.
5. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the income of the appellant assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the compensation awarded under different heads is not in accordance with the material on record. The Tribunal has failed to assess the disability in accordance to the opinion expressed by PW.2-Doctor. Therefore, he seeks to allow the appeal and consequently enhance the compensation.
6. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent - Insurance Company contends that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation under all heads, in accordance with the material evidence, both oral and documentary and the same does not call for interference. On the basis of evidence adduced by PW.2- -4- NC: 2024:KHC:29973 MFA No. 2694 of 2022 Doctor, the tribunal has rightly taken the disability. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the claimant has produced the documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P133, out of which Exs.P1, P2 and P4 are the police records, which clearly depict registration of the FIR and filing of the charge sheet against driver of the offending vehicle and same has not been challenged or controverted. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly attributed the negligence against driver of the offending vehicle. Exs.P3, P5 to P133 are the medical records, which clearly depict the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident.
8. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation and income of the claimant, no material is placed before the Court with regard to proof of income. In the absence of the same, the Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant to be Rs.10,250/- per month, whereas the Legal Services Authority chart prescribes the notional income of -5- NC: 2024:KHC:29973 MFA No. 2694 of 2022 Rs.11,000/- per month for the accident of the year 2017 Accordingly, Rs.11,000/- is taken as income in the present case. The claimant was aged 43 years as on the date of accident and the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier at '14', which does not call for interference.
9. PW.2-Doctor has opined the disability to the extent of 11.7% to the whole body. However, the tribunal has assessed the disability to the extent of 3% to the whole body by dividing disability of 11.7% assessed by PW.2-Doctor from 1/3rd i.e., 3.9% rounded off to 3%. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for appellant that the disability requires to be assessed at 11.7% as opined by PW.2-Doctor. Therefore, the loss of earnings due to disability would be Rs.2,16,216/- (Rs.11,000/- x 12 x 14 x 11.7%) as against Rs.1,46,880/- awarded by the tribunal.
10. The Tribunal awarded Rs.98,300/- towards treatment, hospitalisation, medicines and transportation, -6- NC: 2024:KHC:29973 MFA No. 2694 of 2022 which does not call for interference and the same is retained.
11. The tribunal awarded Rs.4,500/- towards loss of income during laid up period. In view of this Court enhancing the income to Rs.11,000/- per month, the claimant would require atleast three months period to recuperate and to get back to his normal day to day activities. Therefore, claimant would be entitled to Rs.33,000/- (Rs.11,000/- x 3) under this head.
12. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards nourishments, food and miscellaneous expenditure, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.
13. The tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain, suffering and trauma, whereas, the claimant was inpatient for 14 days. I deem it appropriate to award an additional amount of Rs.10,000/-. In all, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.35,000/- under this head. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:29973 MFA No. 2694 of 2022
14. The tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- under this head.
15. The tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards future medical expenses. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.30,000/- under this head.
16. In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,52,516/- as against Rs.2,04,400/- awarded by the Tribunal, as mentioned in the table below:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Treatment, hospitalisation, 98,300-00
medicines and transportation
Nourishments food and 15,000-00
miscellaneous expenditure
Loss of income during laid up 33,000-00
period
Loss of future earnings due to 2,16,216-00
disability
Pain, suffering and trauma 35,000-00
Loss of amenities 25,000-00
Future medical expenses 30,000-00
TOTAL 4,52,516-00
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:29973
MFA No. 2694 of 2022
17. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed-in-part.
ii) The impugned Judgment & Award dated 12.01.2022 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.941/2017, is modified.
iii) The appellant/claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,52,516/- as against Rs.2,04,400/- awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at 6% per annum.
iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid with interest at 6% per annum by the respondent - Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
v) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant-claimant as per the terms of the Tribunal by electronic transfer to the claimant upon furnishing the required Bank details/upon proper identification. -9-
NC: 2024:KHC:29973 MFA No. 2694 of 2022
vi) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the Tribunal shall stand intact.
vii) The Registry is directed to transmit the original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN