Karnataka High Court
Shri Shivaraju S vs Chandru N Gouda on 15 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:46432
MFA No. 5127 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5127 OF 2021(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. SHIVARAJU S.,
S/O. SHIVALINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT MYLANAYAKANA HOSAHALLI,
CHANNAPTANA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAGADEESH H. T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHANDRU N. GOUDA,
S/O. NARAYANA THIMMAPPAGOUDA,
R/AT. NO 268-A, KALASANMOTE,
NEAR HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
HOSAPATNA, HONNARVAR TALUK,
Digitally signed by UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT- 581342.
AASEEFA PARVEEN
Location: HIGH 2. THE MANAGER,
COURT OF RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
KARNATAKA RGIC NO. 28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR,
CENTENARY BUILDING,
M. G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA C., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH, V/O. DATED 25.11.2022)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.02.2021 PASSED IN
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:46432
MFA No. 5127 of 2021
MVC NO.4105/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL
JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU SCCH-18 PARTLY 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 DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Jagadeesh H.T., learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.Mallikarujuna Reddy, learned counsel who represents Sri.Lakshminarayan C., learned counsel on record for respondent No.2.
2. The appellant who sustained injuries in a road traffic accident moved a petition claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- in total. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, which dealt with the case as MVC No.4105/2019 rendered orders on 08.02.2021 awarding a sum of Rs.8,16,754/- as compensation. Projecting that he is entitled for a higher sum, the present appeal is filed. -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:46432 MFA No. 5127 of 2021
3. Arguing the matter representing the appellant, Sri.Jagadeesh H.T. contends that the appellant sustained four grievous injuries due to the accident apart from two other simple injuries. He took extensive treatment, but finally he was left with disability. Learned counsel submits that sufficient proof was produced regarding the aspect of disability. Learned counsel also submits that PW3 spoke in clear terms that the disability in respect of all the three limbs is 72% and in respect of whole body is 36%, but the Tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 25%. Learned counsel further contends that the appellant as an Electrician was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. But the Tribunal took the notional income of the appellant as Rs.9,500/- per month which is improper. Learned counsel also contends that the compensation granted by the Tribunal under all heads is on lower side and therefore an appeal is filed. Learned counsel thereby seeks to enhance the compensation to the extent claimed.
4. Sri. Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned counsel representing respondent No.2, on the other hand submits that the disability as assessed by the Tribunal is proper. Learned counsel also states that the appellant failed to produce any -4- NC: 2024:KHC:46432 MFA No. 5127 of 2021 proof regarding his occupation and income by the date of accident. Learned counsel further contends that the compensation granted by the Tribunal under all heads is indeed exorbitant and therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable.
5. By all the evidence that is brought on record, the appellant established that he sustained super condylar fracture of the midshaft of tibia, facture of shaft of proximal 1/3rd of fibula, fracture of lateral tibia. Undoubtedly, through the evidence of PW3 the appellant established that the disability in respect of the limbs is 72% and whole body is 36%. However, considering the totality of evidence produced, the Tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 25% which needs no interference.
6. Coming to the occupation and earnings of the appellant, the appellant failed to produce any substantive proof with regard to his occupation and earnings by the date of accident. However, as the accident occurred in the year 2019 and for the relevant period, the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the notional income for settlement of claims -5- NC: 2024:KHC:46432 MFA No. 5127 of 2021 as Rs.14,000/- per month, hence as sought for by the learned counsel for the appellant, the notional income of the appellant is taken as Rs.14,000/- per month.
7. It is not in dispute that the appellant was aged about 32 years by the date of accident. Therefore, 40% of the earnings of the appellant are required to be added towards future prospects as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Also the appropriate multiplier to be applied as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009 SAR (Civ) 592 is '16'. Thus, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to under the head loss of future earnings on account of permanent physical disability to the whole body is as under:
Description Amount
Rs.
Notional monthly income 14,000-00
Annual income(14,000x12) 1,68,000-00
Add 40% towards future
2,35,200-00
prospects (1,68,000+40%)
On Applying the
appropriate multiplier
37,63,200-00
'16'(2,35,200x16)
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:46432
MFA No. 5127 of 2021
Loss of future earnings,
permanent physical
09,40,800-00
disability in respect of
whole body being 25%
Thus, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.9,40,800/- towards loss of future earnings.
8. In the light of the grievous injuries sustained, the treatment taken and disability with which the appellant is ultimately left with, this Court is of the view that the appellant would not have attended his normal pursuits atleast for a period of five months. Thus, the loss of earnings during laid up period comes to Rs.70,000/- (Rs.14,000/- x 5).
9. Having considered the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment taken and in the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that, the appellant is entitled to compensation under following heads:
Sl. Heads of compensation Amount in No Rs.
1 Compensation for pain and 75,000-00 suffering 2 Towards food, extra nourishment, attendant 40,000-00 and conveyance charges 3 Medical expenses 1,92,254-00 4 Loss of future earnings 9,40,800-00 5 Loss of income during laid 70,000-00 -7- NC: 2024:KHC:46432 MFA No. 5127 of 2021 up period 6 Loss of amenities in life 20,000-00 7 Future medical expenses 30,000-00 Total 13,68,054-00
10. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.8,16,754/- as compensation. However, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to is Rs.13,68,054/-. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, through orders in MVC No.4105/2019 dated 08.02.2021 is enhanced from Rs.8,16,754/- to Rs.13,68,054/-.
iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:46432 MFA No. 5127 of 2021
v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36