Karnataka High Court
Mr. Jayantha vs Reliance General Insurance Co. ... on 6 December, 2021
Bench: Sachin Shankar Magadum
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
M.F.A NO. 4267 OF 2016(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MR. JAYANTHA
S/O LATE DEVAPPA MOOLYA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT KAIKUNJE HOUSE, B.C.ROAD POST,
JODUMARGA, BANTWALA TALUK,
PRESENTLY R/AT OM NIVAS, KADRI,
MANGALURU TALUK - 575 002.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.GURUPRASAD B R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
MAXIMUS COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
4TH FLOOR, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD,
HAMPANKATTA, MANGALURU - 575 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
2. MR. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE GOPAL RAO,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT HOSAMANE HARIBETTU,
UPPOORU GRAMA,
UDUPI TALUK - 576 105.
2
3. MR. PUSHPARAJ SHETTY
S/O ANAND SHETTY,
ADULT,
SRI MANJUNATHA BUS SERVICES,
SAIKERI, BRAHMAVARA, UDUPI - 576 213.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.H S LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O DATED: 06.06.2017 NOTICE TO R2 TO R3 ARE D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15.02.2016 PASSED
IN MVC NO.1340/13 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT-II, 1ST
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K.,
MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned appeal is filed by the claimant
seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The appellant filed a claim petition for
having sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic
accident dated 2.6.2014. The appellant was
proceeding on the motor bike bearing Regn.No.KA-19-
X-7795 as a pillion rider. When they reached near
Angadipalke of Gundoori Village, the driver of the
offending bus bearing Regn.No.KA-20-B-2003 came in
a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the
bike. As a result of the same, the appellant suffered
fracture of upper right lateral incisor teeth, lacerated
wound over the front inner aspect of the right leg
showing the fracture of shaft of both tibia and fibula.
Hence, filed the claim petition claiming compensation
of Rs.10 lakhs.
3. The appellant in support of his contention
examined himself as p.W.2 and to establish the
disability examined the doctor as p.W.3. The doctor
opined that appellant has suffered 10% disability to
the right lower limb and assessed the disability to the
whole body at 10%. The Tribunal having assessed the
income of the appellant at Rs.6,000/- and by
assessing the disability at 5% has proceeded to award
a sum of Rs.57,600/- towards future loss of income.
The Tribunal in all has awarded Rs.1,53,100/- with
6% interest from the date of petition till its realisation.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance
Company. Perused the records.
5. Though, this Court cannot find fault with
the Tribunal in assessing the income of the appellant
notionally, however, having regard to the date of the
accident, which is of the year 2014, this Court is of
the view that the income assessed by the Tribunal at
Rs.6,000/- is marginally on the lower side. In the
absence of income proof, this Court would proceed to
assess the income of the appellant notionally at
Rs.8,000/- by relying on the chart prepared by the
Legal services authority. By taking disability at 5%,
the compensation re-determined under the head of
loss of future earnings works out to Rs.76,800/-
(400x12x16).
Having regard to the gravity of the injuries
sustained by the appellant, I deem it fit to award a
sum of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering. The
award of Rs.25,000/- under the head of loss of
amenities is fair and just and same remains
undisturbed.
Having regard to the gravity of the injuries
sustained, I am of the view that the appellant is
entitled for loss of income during the laid up period for
a period of three months, which works out to
Rs.8,000x3=Rs.24,000/-.
The amount awarded towards miscellaneous
expenses and medical expenses at Rs.15,000/- and
Rs.25,000/- remains undisturbed.
There is medical evidence indicating that
appellant needs surgery for removal of implants.
P.W.3-doctor has opined that the appellant needs
Rs.5,000/- for future operation. Accordingly, I deed it
fit to award Rs.5,000/- towards future medical
expenses.
6. Hence, the total compensation re-
determined by this Court is as follows:
Sl. Heads Amount
No.
1. Pain and sufferings Rs.60,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.25,000/-
3. Loss of income during laid up Rs.24,000/-
period
4. Loss of future earning Rs.76,800/-
5. Loss of amenities Rs.25,000/-
6. Future Medical Expenses Rs. 5,000/-
7. Miscellaneous expenses Rs.15,000/-
TOTAL Rs.2,08,300/-
Thus, the total compensation re-determined by
this Court works out to Rs.2,08,300/- as against
Rs.1,53,100/- awarded by the Tribunal.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
The impugned judgment and award dated 15.02.2016
passed in MVC.No.1340/2013 by the learned I
Additional District Judge and II Additional MACT,
Mangaluru(DK) is modified holding that the appellant
is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 55,200/-
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of deposit till its realisation.
On deposit, the entire amount shall be released
in favour of the appellant-claimant.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*alb/-.
