Anjani vs S.Marulasiddappa
2021 Latest Caselaw 23 Kant

                        1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                     BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

            MFA No.5251 OF 2013(MV)


BETWEEN:

ANJANI
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF
HOSA RANGAPURA VILLAGE
CHITRADURGA TALUK AND
DISTRICT-577 501.
                                     ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. HAREESH, ADV. FOR
SRI. B.M. SIDDAPPA, ADV. )

AND

1.    S. MARULASIDDAPPA
      S/O SOMASEKHARAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
      R/O KONDAPURA VILLAGE
      HOLALKERE TALUK
      CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577526.

2.    THE BRANCH MANAGER
      NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                              2



     B.M.COMPLEX, LAKSHMI BAZAR
     CHITRADURGA-577 501.

                                        ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.LAKSHMI NARASAPPA, ADV. FOR
SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADV. FOR R2)

    THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED: 19.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.611/2011 ON
THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JDUGE, MACT-5, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                      JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging

the judgment and award dated 19.1.2013 passed by

the 1st Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT-V, Chitradurga

in MVC 611/2011.

2. Brief facts of the case:

On 14.9.2011 at about 7.45 p.m. when the

claimant was traveling in a motorcycle bearing

Registration No.KA-17-U-1567 from Hosarangapura

towards Kondapura as a pillion rider near Bijanal

Basavapura Gate, at that time, the rider of the said

motorcycle rode the same in a rash and negligent

manner and caused accident. As a result, the claimant

fell down and he sustained injuries and immediately

he was shifted to the hospital. After recovering from

injuries, the claimant filed a claim petition before the

Tribunal. In order to support his case, he examined

himself as PW-1, and Dr.G.Narsappa, as PW-2, and

produced and marked 72 documents. On the other

hand, the Insurance Company examined one witness

as RW-1 and produced and marked 2 documents.

After appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal

granted compensation of Rs.2,29,600/- with interest

at 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to

pay compensation to the claimant. Being aggrieved by

the same, the present appeal is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the claimant has

raised the following contentions:

Firstly, the claimant claims that he was doing

agricultural work and earning Rs.1,00,000/- per

annum, but the Tribunal has assessed the income of

the claimant as merely as Rs.4,000/- p.m.

Secondly, PW-2, the doctor has stated in his

evidence that the claimant has suffered loss of vision

of left eye to the extent of 75% to 80% and right eye

to the extent of 45% to 50% and permanent loss of

vision will be 50% to 60% compared to whole body.

But the Tribunal has erred in taking the whole body

disability at only 15%.

Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as

inpatient for a period of 13 days. Even after discharge

from the hospital, he was not in a position to

discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain

during treatment. Considering the same, the

compensation granted by the Tribunal under the head

of 'loss of amenities' is on the lower side. Further, the

Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation under

the head of 'loss of income during laid-up period' and

'incidental expenses'.

Hence, the learned counsel for the claimant

prays for allowing the appeal.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

Insurance Company has raised the following counter-

contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he

was an agriculturist and earning Rs.1,00,000/- per

annum, he has not produced any documents to

establish his income. Therefore, the Tribunal has

rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.

Secondly, PW-2, the doctor in his cross

examination has admitted that the defect can be

cured by using specs. The defect is only to the left

eye. The Tribunal considering the same has rightly

taken the whole body disability at 15%.

Thirdly, considering the oral and documentary

evidence, the Tribunal has granted just and

reasonable compensation.

Hence, the learned counsel for the Insurance

Company prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Perused the records.

6. It is not in dispute that the claimant had

sustained injuries in a road traffic accident due to rash

and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. As

per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained

comminuted fracture of frontal bone extending b/l

nasal, left ethmoid and to the floor of anterior cranial

fossa and right basisphenoid, fracture of left maxillary

sinus, fracture of left squamour temporal.

7. The claimant claims that he was doing

agricultural work and earning Rs.1,00,000/- per

month. But the same is not established by producing

any documents. Therefore, the Tribunal is left with no

other option, but to asses the income of the claimant

notionally. In catena of cases, this Court has relied

upon the Chart prepared by the Lok Adalath for the

purpose of deciding the matters at Lok Adalath.

According to the Chart, for an accident of the year,

2011, the income should be taken notionally as

Rs.6,500/- per month. Therefore, this Court enhances

the claimant's income from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.6,500/-

per month.

8. As per the testimony of the claimant

coupled with that of the evidence of PW-2, the nature

of injuries suggests that the claimant must have been

under rest and treatment for a period of 3 months.

Further, the claimant has stated that he was not in a

position to do any manual work. Accordingly, a sum of

Rs.19,500/- (Rs.6,500 X 3 months) is awarded under

the head of 'loss of income during laid up period'.

9. The claimant is aged about 22 years at the

time of accident, and the multiplier applicable to his

age group is 18. His income is assessed at Rs.6,500/-

per month. PW-2, the doctor has stated in his

evidence that the claimant has suffered loss of vision

of left eye to the extent of 75% to 80% and right eye

to the extent of 45% to 50% and permanent loss of

vision will be 50% to 60% compared to whole body.

Considering the nature of injuries mentioned in the

wound certificate and evidence of the claimant and

the doctor, the whole body disability can be taken at

40% as against 15% taken by the Tribunal. Therefore,

the 'loss of future income' works out to Rs.5,61,600/-

(6,500 x 12 x 18 x 40%) and it is awarded as against

Rs.1,29,600/- awarded by the Tribunal.

10. Considering the nature of injuries and an

amount of discomfort and unhappiness, the claimant

has to undergo in his life, this Court enhances the

compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.40,000/- under

the head of 'loss of amenities'.

11. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal

under other heads remains undisturbed.

12. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

following compensation:

As awarded As awarded Compensation under by the by this different Heads Tribunal Court (Rs.) (Rs.) Pain and sufferings 50,000 50,000 Medical expenses 40,000 40,000 Loss of income during 0 19,500 laid up period Loss of amenities 10,000 40,000

Loss of future income 129,600 561,600 Total 229,600 711,100

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation

of Rs.7,11,100/-.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the compensation amount along with interest at 6%

p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of

receipt of copy of this judgment.

To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the

Claims Tribunal is modified.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DM