Ramesh Gopal Mangannavar vs Appanna Anappa Patil
2021 Latest Caselaw 5857 Kant

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 5857 Kant
Judgement Date : 9 December, 2021

Karnataka High Court

Ramesh Gopal Mangannavar vs Appanna Anappa Patil on 9 December, 2021

Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav, S Rachaiah

                           1


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                       PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

                         AND

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH


             M.F.A.NO.102222/2016 (MV)

BETWEEN

RAMESH GOPAL MANGANNAVAR,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, NOW NIL,
R/O: SHINDOLLI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI,
                                       .....APPELLANT
(BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR B HORATTI, ADV.)

AND

1.     APPANNA ANAPPA PATIL,
       AGE:50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
       R/O: LAXMI GALLI, HALGA,
       TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI.

2.   IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
     SHIKSHAK BHAVAN, COLLEGE ROAD,
     BELAGAVI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
                                      .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVINDRA R MANE, ADV. FOR R2; R-1 SERVED)

      THIS APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 173() OF MV
ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
20.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1950/2015 ON THE FILE OF
                             2


THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION    AND   SEEKING   ENHANCEMENT    OF
COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

The present appeal is filed by the claimant calling in

question the order of the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.1950/2015

and has sought for enhancement of the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal.

2. The facts made out are that on 01.09.2015, a

tractor rotator bearing No.KA-22/T-5724 was engaged in

removing waste grass from the field of the claimant and

while the said tractor rotator was being cleaned and waste

grass was being removed, grass was stuck in the rotator.

The driver had requested the claimant to remove the grass

and while the claimant was removing and cleaning the

rotator, the driver of the tractor without observing the

claimant, reversed the vehicle in a rash and negligent

manner. Due to which, the claimant sustained multiple

fractures and crush injuries to both the legs and all over

the body. The claimant was admitted to Vijaya Hospital,

Belagavi and the right leg was amputed above the knee.

The claimant is stated to be 40 years as on the date of

accident and he was an agriculturist growing vegetables

and earning Rs.25,000/- per month.

3. It is submitted that the amount of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and

requires enhancement.

4. Perused the records and the order of the

Tribunal.

5. The point for consideration is as follows:

"Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement? If so, to what extent?"

6. It must be seen that the Tribunal has taken

income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/-. It is to be taken

note that the income as regards to an accident of the year

2015 as per the Lok Adalath guidelines is Rs.8,000/- per

month. It is further submitted that insofar as amputation

of the right leg above the knee, the permanent disability

consequent to said injuries affects the functional disability

and while computing compensation loss of future prospects

also needs to be taken note of. It would be a reasonable

to take future prospects at 25%. Insofar as disability is

concerned, the Tribunal has taken the disability at 55%.

Taking note of the disability certificate at Ex.P-10 and also

taking note of the nature of avocation of the claimant, it

would be appropriate to take disability at 80%. It is to be

noticed that it is not only the disability as certified by the

doctor but looking into the nature of work performed by

the claimant, the functional disability if taken note of

appropriate percentage of disability that ought to have

been taken is at 80%. Accordingly, the loss of income is

to be recalculated as follows:

Rs.8,000 + 25% = 10,000/- Rs.10,000 x 12 x 80 x 15 = 14,40,000/-

7. Insofar as the loss of amenities is concerned,

the Tribunal has awarded a meager sum of Rs.50,000/-.

Taking note of the amputation of the right leg above the

knee, it would be reasonable to enhance the compensation

on said head by Rs.50,000/-.

8. Insofar as under the head of pain and suffering

is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of

Rs.50,000/- while it must be noticed that claimant had

undergone operations on two occasions. Looking into the

nature of injuries and also amputation of right limb, it

would be just and fair to increase the amount awarded

under pain and suffering to Rs.1,25,000/- instead of

Rs.50,000/- as awarded. Accordingly, the enhancement of

compensation would be as follows:

Sl.

                        Heads                 Amount
       No.
       1.    Pain and suffering            Rs.1,25,000/-
       2.    Loss of future income         Rs.14,40,000/-
       3.    Medical expenses              Rs.88,000/-

       4.    Loss of income for laid       Rs.25,000/-
             up period
       5.    Food nutrition                Rs.40,000/-
       6.    Loss of amenities             Rs.1,00,000/-
                                     Total Rs.18,18,000/-