Smt Mahadevamma vs Shanosh Kumar T A
2021 Latest Caselaw 799 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                      PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                          AND

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

             M.F.A.No.2615/2019 (MV)

BETWEEN :
Smt. Mahadevamma,
W/o. Shivaraju,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at: Kalale Village,
Nanjangudu Taluk,
Mysuru District-571 118

Now residing at:
Hasaguli Village,
Gundlupet Taluk,
Chamarajanagar District,
Chamarajanagar-571 111.
                                        ...Appellant
(By Sri. Bhanu Prakash H.V, Advocate)

AND :
  1. Santhosh Kumar T.A,
     S/o. Manoharan T.A,
     Aged about 37 years,
     R/at : Block -C, 1827,
                        -2-


     DAO Residential Complex,
     Someshwarapura Extension,
     Cambridge Layout, Ulsooru,
     Bengaluru - 560 008.

     [Rider cum Owner of Royal -
     Enfield Bullet Bike bearing
     Registration No.KA-03-MH-3781]

  2. The Divisional Controller,
     M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
     No.1134, Prince of Wale Road,
     Chamarajapuram,
     Mysore - 570 004.
     [Insurer of Royal Enfield Bullet Bike
     Bearing Registration No.
     KA-03-MH-3781,
     Vide Policy No.0703003116P03873137
     Valid from 23.06.2016 to 22.06.2017]

                                         ...Respondents

(By Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, Advocate for R-2;
Notice to R1 is dispensed with v/o dated 05.01.2021)

      This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V. Act
against the judgment and award dated 12.10.2018
passed in MVC.No.400/2017 on the file of the Senior
Civil Judge & JMFC, and MACT, Gundlupet, partly
allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking
enhancement of compensation.

     This appeal coming on for Admission this day,
M.I.Arun, J., delivered the following:
                         -3-


                    JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated

12.10.2018 passed in MVC No.400/2017 by the Senior

Civil Judge, J.M.F.C. Gundlupet (for short 'the Tribunal'),

the petitioner therein has preferred this appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

That on 13.03.2017 at about 6.30 p.m. the

petitioner was going on the left side of the road after

crossing the Mysuru-Gundlupet main road near Hirikati

gate, at that time, the Royal Enfield Bullet Bike bearing

No.KA-03-MH-3781 being driven in a rash and negligent

manner dashed against the petitioner, as a result of

which, petitioner sustained grievous injuries to several

parts of the body and more particularly to his left leg.

Hence, he preferred MVC No.400/2017 before the

Tribunal and claimed a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

4. Respondent No.1 is the rider-cum-owner of the

offending vehicle and respondent No.2 is the Insurance

Company with whom the offending Car is insured.

5. On service of summons, respondent No.1 did

not appear before the Court. Hence he was placed ex-

parte. Respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel,

filed the written statement denying the liability.

6. The petitioner, to prove her case has

examined herself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to

P14. The respondents did not examine any witness nor

got marked any documents. Through Court

Commissioner one witness was examined as CW-1 and

got marked Exs.C-1 to C-4.

7. Based on the pleadings and evidence let in,

the Tribunal has awarded compensation of

Rs.4,37,950/- to the petitioner. Not satisfied by the

same, petitioner has preferred the above appeal.

8. The contention of the petitioner is that the

compensation awarded under the various heads is on

the lower side and prays for enhancement of the same.

The respondents justified the judgment and award of the

Tribunal and has sought for dismissal of the appeal.

9. The factum of accident, negligence of the

offending bike rider and the petitioner sustaining the

injuries is not in dispute. The dispute is only in respect

of the quantum of compensation awarded.

10. As per the findings of the Tribunal, the

petitioner suffered injuries on her left leg and the Doctor

has opined that she has sustained 52.5% disability to

the particular limb. The trial Court has taken the

disability to the whole body at 18%. No grounds are

made out as to why the same has to be interfered with

and we find it to be appropriate. Though it is pleaded

that the petitioner was doing coolie and milk vending

business and was earning a sum of Rs.22,000/- per

month, no documents were produced to prove her

income. Accordingly, trial Court has taken the notional

income as Rs.8,000/- per month. We find the same to

be on lower side. The accident is of the year 2017. As

per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal

Services Authority in consultation with the Insurance

Companies, the notional income in the absence of proof

of income to be adopted for the year 2017 is

Rs.11,000/- per month. Petitioner was aged about 36

years at the time of the accident. Hence the multiplier

of '15' has to be adopted. Thus, under the head 'loss of

dependency', the petitioner is entitled to a sum of

Rs.3,56,400/- (11,000 x 12 x 15 x 18%). Towards

expenditure of medicine and treatment, the Tribunal has

awarded a sum of Rs.83,750/- based on the actual bills,

we deem it appropriate and correct. Towards food and

nourishment, transportation and attendance charges,

the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-, we

deem it appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.25,000/.

Towards loss of earning during treatment, the Tribunal

has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Taking into

consideration, the notional income at Rs.11,000/- and

that she has sustained fracture and it would require at

least three months to recover, we deem it appropriate to

enhance the same to Rs.33,000/-. Towards pain and

sufferings Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.10,000/-,

we deem it appropriate to enhance the same to

Rs.50,000/-. Towards future medical expenses a sum of

Rs.60,000 is awarded, we deem it appropriate and the

same to be correct. Towards loss of amenities no

amount has been awarded, we deem it appropriate to

award a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities.

Thus in all, compensation awarded to the petitioner is

enhanced from Rs.4,37,950/- to Rs.6,38,150/-.

11. Hence, the following:

ORDER

i] Appeal is allowed in part.

ii] The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal

is modified and enhanced to Rs.6,38,150/- as

against Rs.4,57,950/- which shall carry interest

at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced

compensation from the date of the claim petition

till its realization.

iii] The insurance company shall deposit the re-

assessed total compensation determined as

aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days

from the date of receipt of the certified copy of

the judgment and order.

iv] The portion of the order of the Tribunal

inasmuch as liability and disbursement remains

intact.

v] The modified compensation shall be disbursed in

terms of the order of the Tribunal.

vi] Draw modified award accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

ag