Karnataka High Court
Sri.Irappa Siddappa Hosur vs Sri.Shrikant S Meti on 1 February, 2022
Bench: S G Pandit, Anant Ramanath Hegde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
M.F.A. No.102415/2019 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI IRAPPA SIDDAPPA HOSUR,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER & COOLIE (NOW NIL),
R/O: MUTAWAD VILLAGE,
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI SHRIKANT SHIVAPPA METI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: AT POST: AVARADI, TQ: RAMDURG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. THE CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD., (REGISTERED) HEAD,
2ND OFFICE AT DARE HOUSE, 11 FLOOR,
2, NSC, BASE ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 20.03.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1198/2017 ON THE
FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
2
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGEMENT
The claimant in MVC No.1198/2017 on the file of I
Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional MACT., Belagavi and
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal made a claim for compensation
of Rs.25,00,000/-. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part
and awarded the compensation of Rs.4,03,200.00 along with the
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the
date of realization.
2. The claimant made a claim that he has suffered
injuries on account of accident which took place on 23.05.2017
at about 8.30 p.m. when he was riding motor bike bearing
registration No.KA-24/L-4257. According to the claimant, the
goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-24/A-0714 came from
opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and caused
the accident. Claimant alleges that driver of the Lorry is solely
responsible for the accident.
3. The claim was contested by the owner of the lorry as
well as the insurer of the lorry. Both owner and insurer prayed
for dismissal of the petition by disputing the claim made by the
petitioner. In addition to prayer for dismissal of the petition has
also made alternative prayer to fasten the liability on the
Insurance Company in the event of tribunal upholding the claim
of the petitioner. The first respondent would contend that the
vehicle involved in the accident was duly insured and the driver
had a valid and effective driving license as on the date of the
accident.
4. The issue relating to negligence is answered in
favour of the petitioner and against the driver of the lorry. This
finding is not assailed by the owner or the insurer. Under these
circumstances, the appeal is filed by the claimant seeking
enhancement of compensation. The only question that needs to
be considered in this appeal is;
Whether the appellant has made out a case for
enhancement of compensation?
5. There is no dispute over the fact that the appellant
has sustained fracture of Tibia and Fibula. The Doctor has
submitted a disability certificate to the effect that the claimant
has suffered a disability to the extent of 25% to his upper right
limb and 40% to his right lower limb. While assessing the
compensation on the head of loss of future earning owing to
disability, the Tribunal has taken 10% disability. The learned
counsel for the claimant/appellant would submit that the total
disability assessed by the Doctor is 65% and the Tribunal
committed error in considering 10% disability to assess the loss
of future earning capacity.
6. This Court has gone through the records placed
before the Court. This Court also considered the medical records
in particular. The fracture on the Tibia and Fibula is very much
established from the medical records. There is no dispute over
the fact that the claimant is a Coolie. The claimant is engaged in
manual work. The kind of injury sustained by the petitioner is
going to affect him given the nature of work the petitioner was
doing prior to the accident. Under these circumstances, this
Court is of the opinion that the tribunal should have taken
disability to the extent of 20% instead of 10% while calculating
loss of future earning capacity.
7. The learned counsel for the insurer Mr. Ravindra R.
Mane, with all vehemence would argue that the compensation
awarded is on higher side, given the fact that the tribunal has
taken the income of the claimant at Rs.11,000.00 per month in
the absence of any proof. The learned counsel would urge that in
the absence of any proof, as per the chart prepared by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the income would be
Rs.10,250.00 per month. Since the claimant was aged 25 years,
the multiplier adopted is 18. Thus, the compensation payable
under the head of loss of earning capacity needs to be
re-determined by taking the income of the injured at
Rs.10,250.00 and Tribunal erred in taking the income at
Rs.11,000.00 in the absence of proof. Since the notional income
taken by the Tribunal is on higher side in terms of the chart
prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, this
Court would take the monthly income of the claimant at
Rs.10,250.00 and accordingly, the compensation payable would
be Rs.3,32,100.00 [Rs.10,250.00 (income per month) X 12
(months) X 18 (Multiplier) X 15% (disability)].
8. Though the contentions were raised seeking
enhancement of the compensation on other heads, this Court is
not inclined to accept the said contentions, for want of evidence.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and compensation is
enhanced to Rs.5,15,400.00 as against Rs.4,03,200.00 awarded
by the Tribunal along with the interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
9. The compensation payable under the head laid up
period is enhanced from Rs.2,800.00 to Rs.20,500.00
considering the nature of the injury.
10. Hence, the total compensation payable would be as
under.
Sl.
HEADS AMOUNT
No.
1. Towards loss of future earning capacity. Rs.3,32,1000.00
2. Towards medical expenses Rs.1,17,800.00
Towards pain and suffering from the
3. Rs.10,000.00
fracture of left lower.
Towards special diet, conveyance and
4. attendance charges. Rs.15,000.00
5. Towards two fracture injuries. Rs.20,000.00
6. Towards laid up period Rs.20,500.00
TOTAL Rs.5,15,400.00
11. Accordingly the judgment of award passed by the
claimant Tribunal in MVC No.1198/2017 is allowed in part.
12. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed in part. Judgment and award passed
in MVC No.1198/2017 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil
Judge & Additional MACT., Belagavi is modified awarding
compensation Rs.5,15,400.00 along with interest at the rate of
6% p.a. till the date of petitioner payment.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE
SSP
