Karnataka High Court
R Muthuraju vs Alumelu Mangamma on 31 July, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30255
MFA No. 2947 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2947 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
R MUTHURAJU
S/O LATE M RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT JALAMANGALA ROAD,
HANUMANTHANAGARA,
RAMANAGARA TOWN- 562 159
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ALUMELU MANGAMMA
MAJOR,
R/AT NO.7/7.
ANANDANILAYA, KASTURBA NAGAR,
RUDRAPPA GARDEN,
MYSURU ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 029
Digitally 2. TATA AIG GEN INS CO LTD
signed by B BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
LAVANYA JAMBOO KESHAVA ARCADE,
Location: MILLERS ROAD,
HIGH BENGALURU-560 052
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAVI S.SAMPRATHI .,ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 20.07.2023)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.03.01.2022 PASSED IN MVC
NO.227/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, PARTLY
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30255
MFA No. 2947 of 2022
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
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 3rd January 2022 passed in MVC. No.227/2010 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ramanagara (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. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.2,03,360/- with interest at 6% per annum and directed the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to jointly and severally pay the compensation.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:30255 MFA No. 2947 of 2022
4. 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. It is also contended that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence of the doctor in the proper perspective and the disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side and future prospects has not been awarded so also no compensation is awarded under the head of future medical expenses. The compensation awarded under different heads is not in accordance with the material on record. Therefore, he seeks to allow the appeal and consequently enhance the compensation.
5. 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 these grounds, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:30255 MFA No. 2947 of 2022
6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents, it is seen that though the occurrence of accident, involvement of vehicles, injuries sustained by the claimant due to the accident are disputed, same have been proved and established by production of Ex.P1 to Ex.P54 and negligence is rightly attributed against driver of the offending vehicle. Ex.P3 to Ex.P54 are the medical records, which clearly depict the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident.
7. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation, income and disability sustained by the claimant, no material is placed before the Court with regard to proof of income except stating that the claimant was working as a Mason. It cannot be disputed that Mason cannot produce any material of proof with regard to his income unless he is working for big organization or agency. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant to be Rs.4,000/- per month, whereas the -5- NC: 2024:KHC:30255 MFA No. 2947 of 2022 Legal Services Authority chart prescribes the notional income of Rs.5,500/- per month for the accident of the year 2010. Accordingly, Rs.5,500/- is taken as income in the present case. The claimant was aged 55 years as on the date of accident and the appropriate multiplier would be '11', which is rightly taken by the Tribunal and the same does not call for interference.
8. Doctor is examined as PW.2, who has opined disability to an extent of 12 % to whole body. Placing reliance on the evidence of the doctor, the Tribunal has rightly assessed disability at 12% to the whole body and the same does not call for interference.
9. In view of the above, loss of income due to disability would be Rs.87,120/- (Rs.5500 x 12 x 11 x 12%) as against Rs.63,360/- awarded by the Tribunal.
10. The Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards pain and agony, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:30255 MFA No. 2947 of 2022
11. The tribunal awarded Rs.55,000/- towards medical expenses, attendant charges, food and nourishment. The claimant has produced medical bills totally worth Rs.44,101/- and adduced evidence in support of the same. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.44,101/- towards medical expenses. The claimant was in-patient for 20 days. Therefore, Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards food, nourishment and attendant charges.
12. Towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal has not awarded compensation. I deem it appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- under this head.
13. Considering the magnitude of injuries suffered by the claimant, atleast ten months is required to recuperate and get back to normal day to day activities. In view of this Court enhancing the income to Rs.5,500/- per month, Rs.55,000/- (Rs.5500 x 10)) is awarded under this head.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:30255 MFA No. 2947 of 2022
14. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards future medical expenses. I deem it appropriate to award Rs.10,000/- under this head as some implants have to be removed.
15. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards conveyance. I deem it appropriate to retain the same.
16. In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,76,221/- as against Rs.2,03,360/- awarded by the tribunal, as mentioned in the table below:
Sl. Head of compensation Amount of
No. compensation
awarded
1 Loss of income due to disability Rs.87,120-00
2 Pain and agony Rs.40,000-00
3 Medical expenses Rs.44,101-00
4 Food, nourishment and Rs.10,000-00
attendant charges
5 Loss of income during laid up Rs.55,000-00
period
6 Future medical expenses Rs.10,000-00
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:30255
MFA No. 2947 of 2022
7 Towards conveyance Rs. 5,000-00
8 Loss of amenities Rs.25,000-00
Total Rs.2,76,221-00
17. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The impugned Judgment & Award dated 3rd January 2022 passed by the tribunal in MVC No.227/2010, is modified.
iii) The appellant/claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,76,221/- as against Rs.2,03,360/- awarded by the tribunal alongwith interest at 6 % per annum.
iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid with interest at 6 % per annum 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 -9- NC: 2024:KHC:30255 MFA No. 2947 of 2022 the claimant upon furnishing the required bank details/upon proper identification.
vi) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact.
vii) Registry is directed to transmit the original records to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44