Karnataka High Court
Smt Asha vs Mahadeva H S on 4 December, 2021
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar, P.Krishna Bhat
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5920 OF 2019 (MV)
BETWEEN :
SMT. VEENA P.K
W/O P.U. CARIYAPPA
AGED 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT POLOOR VILLAGE
AND POST, VIA NAPOKLU
MADIKERI
KODAGU-571 214 ...APPELLANT
(BY SHRI. SYED ABDUL SABOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. MAHADEVA H.S
S/O SANNAIAH
AGED 43 YEARS
R/AT HOSAKOTE VILLAGE
C.B.T. COLONY POST
KASABA HOBLI
HUNSUR-571 105
2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
CO. LTD., MUMBAI
BRANCH OFFICE AT
MYTHRI ARCADE, FIRST MAIN
SARASWATHIPURAM
MYSURU-570 009 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. N.A. MALLIKARJUNA, ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1-SERVED)
2
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.04.2019, PASSED IN
MVC NO.543/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, PRINCIPAL COURT
OF SMALL CAUSES AND MACT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
P.S. DINESH KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the injured claimant in
MVC.No.543/2017 on the file of the Judge, Principal Court
of Small Cause & MACT, Mysuru, seeking enhancement of
compensation awarded vide judgment and award dated
April 20, 2019, passed by the Tribunal.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred
as per their status before the Tribunal.
3. Heard Shri Syed Abdul Saboor, learned advocate
for claimant-appellant and Shri Mallikarjuna, learned
advocate for second respondent-Insurer.
4. The injured claimant, Smt.Veena sustained grievous
injuries in a road traffic accident on 13.12.2016,
when a Bolero Goods Vehicle bearing Registration
No.KA-45-9511 coming from opposite side dashed against
the car bearing Registration No.KA-12-P-5751 in which the
claimant and others were travelling. The claimant
sustained grievous injuries. She was shifted to the
Government Hospital, Bilikere. Later she was treated as
in-patient in Brindavana Hospital, Mysuru, for five days.
On adjudication of the claim petition, Tribunal has
awarded Rs.3,10,000/-.
5. Learned advocate for the claimant urged the
following contentions:
• Firstly, the notional earning capacity
considered by the Tribunal is on the lower
side; and
• Secondly, the compensation awarded towards
loss of income during laid up period and rest,
loss of future income and loss of amenities are
on the lower side.
6. With regard to the notional earning capacity,
Shri Mallikarjuna fairly submitted that this Court has
consistently considered the notional earning capacity of an
able bodied person in the year 2016 as Rs.9,500/- p.m.
The liability has been admitted by the Insurer.
7. We have carefully considered rival contentions and
perused the records.
8. The claimant was aged 48 years as on the date of
the accident. Learned advocate for the claimant is right
in his submission that the earning capacity of the
claimant considered by the Tribunal is on the lower side.
This Court has consistently considered the notional earning
capacity at Rs.9,500/- p.m., in respect of an able bodied
person in the year 2016.
9. With regard to the second contention namely the
compensation awarded towards loss of income during laid
up period and rest, loss of future income and loss of
amenities are on the lower side, the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.18,000/-, Rs.65,520/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively and
the same require some enhancement. Claimant was aged
48 years, hence the applicable multiplier is 13. Tribunal,
based on evidence, has considered disability at 7%.
10. In view of the above, we re-compute the
compensation as follows:
By taking the earning capacity of Rs.9,500/- p.m.,
the loss of earning works out to Rs.1,03,740/-
(Rs.9,500*12*13*7%). The loss of future income is
enhanced to Rs.38,220/- (Rs.1,03,740-65,520).
Loss of income during laid up period and rest (three
months bed-rest) works out to Rs.28,500/- (Rs.9,500*3).
An additional sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards
Loss of amenities.
11. The compensation is re-computed as follows:
Sl.No. Description Amount
Medical Expenses and Rs.1,38,000
a. Nourishment
Loss of income during laid up Rs.28,500
b. period and rest
Injury pain and sufferings Rs.40,000
c.
Loss of future income Rs.1,03,740
d.
e. Loss of amenities of life Rs.30,000
f. Future medical expenses Rs.25,000
g. TOTAL (a+b+c+d+e+f) Rs.3,65,240
LESS: Compensation awarded
h. Rs.3,10,000
by the Tribunal (g-h)
Enhanced Compensation Rs.55,240/-
12. Hence, the following;
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part by holding that
claimant is entitled for total compensation of
Rs.3,65,240/- as against Rs.3,10,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal, payable with interest at 6% p.a.,
from the date of filing claim petition till the
date of deposit. The enhanced compensation is
Rs.55,240/-; and
(ii) Insurer shall pay the entire compensation
amount of Rs.3,65,240/- with interest at 6% p.a.,
excluding the amount already paid, within two weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Disbursement shall be made as directed by the
Tribunal.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
AV
