Karnataka High Court
Shantayya @ Sagtish S/O Sangayya ... vs The Divisional Controller on 2 August, 2022
Bench: S G Bysgpj, Arhj
-1-
MFA No. 101994 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO. 101994 OF 2016 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHANTAYYA @ SAGTISH S/O SANGAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT AND AGRICULTURAL
COOLIE, R/O: M.TIMMAPUR, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST:
BELAGAVI
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.D.V. PATTAR & SRI. ANAND R KOLLI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
N.W.K.R.T.C, BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. A G HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T
R
NO.1828/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
Dharwad Bench
Dharwad.
Date: 2022.08.04
11:11:49 +0530
RAMDURG, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, S.G.
PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.
-2-
MFA No. 101994 of 2016
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the
consent of learned counsel for both parties, the matter is
taken up for final disposal.
2. The claimant-injured is before this Court
dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded
under the judgment and award dated 30.09.2015 in M.V.C.
No.1828/2013 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and
Member, Addl. MACT, Ramdurg (for short, 'Tribunal'),
praying for enhancement of compensation.
3. The appellant/claimant filed a claim petition under
Section 166 of the M.V. Act,1988 claiming compensation for
the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident that
occurred on 06.09.2012 involving Motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-24/J-5061 and NWKRTC Bus bearing
registration No.KA-22/F-1740. It is stated that the
appellant/claimant was aged about 21 years as on the date
of the accident and he was studying in 2nd year ITI and that
apart, he was working as agricultural coolie, earning
Rs.9,000/- per month.
MFA No. 101994 of 2016
4. After service of notice, the respondent-NWKRTC
appeared through its counsel and filed statement of
objections denying the entire averments made in the claim
petition. It was contended that the accident occurred due to
negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle in question
and hence, the respondent-Corporation is not liable to pay
compensation.
5. Before the Tribunal, the claimant in support of his
case examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked documents as
Exs.P1 to P15, whereas respondent-Corporation examined
RW1 to RW3 and got marked documents as Ex.R1 to R8.
The Tribunal on appreciation of the material on record
awarded a total compensation of Rs.60,400/- with interest at
6% per annum from the date of petition till date of
realization.
6. While awarding the above compensation, the
Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant/injured at
Rs.1,000/- per month and assessed the disability of the
injured at 10% to the whole body. Not being satisfied with
MFA No. 101994 of 2016
the quantum of compensation, the claimant is before this
Court praying for enhancement of compensation.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that the income of the claimant assessed by the Tribunal at
Rs.1,000/- per month is on the lower side, inasmuch as he
was studying in 2nd year ITI and also working as agricultural
coolie, earning Rs.9000/- per month. It is his submission
that even though the claimant has sustained fracture of right
femur, the compensation awarded at Rs.5,000/- each
towards pain and suffering, attendant and diet charges are
on the lower side. He further submits that the Tribunal
committed an error in not awarding any compensation
towards loss of income during laid-up period, since he was
hospitalized for about 23 days. Thus he prays for
enhancement of compensation.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-
Corporation supports impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal. He submits that in the absence of any material on
record, the Tribunal assessed the income of the
injured/appellant at Rs.1,000/- per month which is correct
MFA No. 101994 of 2016
and proper. He further submits that the compensation
awarded under various heads are just and reasonable which
do not call for interference. Thus, he prays for dismissal of
the appeal.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the appeal papers, the only point that
would arise for our consideration in this appeal is, whether
the appellant-claimant would be entitled for enhanced
compensation?
10. Our answer to the above point is in the
affirmative for the following reasons.
11. The accident which had taken place on
06.09.2012 involving Motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-
24/J-5061 and NWKRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-
22/F-1740 is not in dispute, so also the accidental injuries
suffered by the appellant. It is the contention of the
appellant that he was studying in 2nd year ITI and also
working as agricultural coolie, earning Rs.9,000/- per month.
To substantiate the said contention, the claimant has not
produced any cogent evidence to show that he was earning
MFA No. 101994 of 2016
Rs.9,000/- per month. In the absence of any material on
record to establish the avocation and earning of the
appellant/claimant, this Court and Lok Adalath while settling
the accidental claims of the year 2012, would assess the
notional income of the injured at Rs.6,500/- per month,
taking note of the chart prepared by KSLSA based on various
factors including the minimum wage fixed. In the instant
case also, taking note of the same, we deem it appropriate
to re-assess the notional income of the injured at Rs.6,500/-
p.m. instead of Rs.1,000/- assessed by the Tribunal.
12. It is seen that the claimant/injured suffered
fracture of right femur. PW3-Doctor in his evidence deposed
that the injured/claimant sustained fracture of right femur,
which has led to wastage of muscles, shortening of the right
lower limb and restrictions in the movements of hip joint and
knee joint and he has assessed permanent physical disability
of the claimant to an extent of 10% to the whole body. The
Tribunal taking note of the evidence of PW3 along with
documentary evidence viz. Ex.P11-3 X-rays, Ex.P12-
Disability Certificate, Ex.P13-Admit Card and Ex.P14-Case
MFA No. 101994 of 2016
Sheet, has taken the disability of the claimant/appellant at
10% to the whole body, which according to us is proper and
correct. Thus, there is no error committed by the Tribunal in
assessing the disability of the appellant/claimant at 10% to
the whole body. Multiplier of '18' adopted by the Tribunal is
proper and correct. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to
compensation on the head of loss of future income at
Rs.1,40,400/- (Rs.6,500 x 12 x 18 x 10/100).
13. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- each
on the head of pain and suffering & mental agony which is on
the lower side. Taking note of nature of injuries suffered by
the claimant, we deem it appropriate to award a sum of
Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering. Further, the
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards medical
expenses, based on medical bills and prescriptions, which in
our view is proper and correct and needs no interference.
The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards
attendant, diet charges, nourishment food etc. The said
amount is on the lower side. The claimant had sustained
fracture of right femur and was inpatient for 23 days. Taking
MFA No. 101994 of 2016
note of the injuries sustained by the claimant and
hospitalization, we are of the view that the claimant would
be entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- on the head of
attendant, diet and nourishment food etc as against
Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. It is to be noticed that
the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding any
compensation on the head of loss of income during laid up
period. It is no doubt true that the claimant was an inpatient
for about 23 days, therefore, he would be entitled to a sum
of Rs.19,500/- (Rs.6,500 x 3 months) on the head of loss
of income during laid up period. Thus, the appellant-
claimant would be entitled to modified compensation under
following heads:
Sl. Particulars Amount
No.
1. Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/-
2. Attendant, diet and nourishing food Rs.25,000/-
etc.
3. Medical Expenses Rs.25,000/-
4. Loss of future income due to Rs.1,40,400/-
disability (Rs.6,500 (income) x 12
(months) x 18 (multiplier) x 10/100
disability
5. Loss of income during laid-up period Rs.19,500/-
TOTAL Rs.2,33,900/-
MFA No. 101994 of 2016
14. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.2,33,900/- as against Rs.60,400/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
15. Hence, we pass the following order.
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal is modified to the extent
that the claimants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.2,33,900/- as against
Rs.60,400/- awarded by the Tribunal.
c) The enhanced compensation amount shall
bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till date of
realization.
d) The respondent-Corporation shall deposit
the said compensation amount before the
Tribunal within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this
- 10 -
MFA No. 101994 of 2016
judgment. Release and deposit of the
enhanced compensation amount shall be
made as per the award of the Tribunal.
e) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
