Karnataka High Court
Parasappa S/O Veerupaxappa ... vs Jakirhussain Hussainsab Shaikh on 31 January, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31 S T DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
M.F.A. No.101988/2016 (MV)
BET WEEN
PARASAPPA,
S/O VEERU PAX APPA KOPPAD,
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICU LTU RE COOLIE,
PRESENT LY NILL,
R/O RAMTHAL, TQ: HU NGU ND,
DIST: B AGALKOT-580101. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ANAND R.KOLLI &
SRI D.V.PAT TAR, ADVS.)
AND
1. JAKIRHU SAIN HUS SAINSAB SHAIKH,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE CAR
B EARING NO.KA-01/B -9957,
R/O SECTOR NO.44, PLOT NO.129,
NAVANAGAR, DIST: B AGALKOT-5801 01.
2. MR.MAHADEVAIAH,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BU SINESS,
R/O DODDAKU RB AR HALL I VIL LAGE,
TQ: KANAKAPU RA HAROHAL LI HOB ALI,
DIST: RAMNAGAR - 58020 0.
3. THE DIV IS IONAL MANAGER,
U NIT ED INDIA INSU RANCE COMPANY LIMIT ED,
MELLIGER I COMPL EX ,
BAGALKOT-580101. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVINDRA R.MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 DISPENS ED WITH)
2
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEA L IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEH ICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE J UDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.11.2 015 PASS ED IN
MVC No.173/ 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMB ER, MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS T RIB UNAL-II, BAGALKOT, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PET IT ION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEA L COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The claimant has preferred this app eal being not
satisfied with the quantum of compensation award ed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Bagalkot
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal', for brevity)
in MVC No.173/2013 vide its judgment and award
dated 09.11.2015.
2. The parties to this appeal are referred to by
their rankings assigned to them before the Tribunal
for the sake of convenience.
3. Brief facts of the case that would be
relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal
are:
The claimant was proceeding in his bicycle on
23.09.2012 at about 10.30 a.m. towards his land
situated opposite to Daddennavar Mines. When he
reached near his land, the offending car bearing
registration No.KA-01/B-9957 which was driven by its
driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against
the claimant and caused the accident. In the said
accident, the claimant suffered grievous injuries over
his left leg and other parts of the body and
immediately he was shifted to Dr.Daddennavar
Hospital, Bagalkot wherein he was admitted as an
inpatient and treated for 12 days. The claimant had
therefore filed a claim petition under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the 'Act')
claiming compensation of `8,05,000/- from the
owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle.
The Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition
granting compensation of `1,96,400/- with interest at
6% per annum from the date of petition till
realization and saddled the liability to deposit the
compensation amount on the 3 r d respondent-insurer.
Being not satisfied with the quantum of
compensation, the claimant is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the claimant submits
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
compared to the injuries and treatment undergone by
the claimant is meager. He submits that the notional
income assessed by the Tribunal at `6,000/- per
month is bad-in-law. He submits that the
compensation awarded under the various other heads
is also on the lower side and accordingly prays to
allow the appeal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
the insurer submits that the Tribunal had rightly
taken the income at `6,000/- per month in view of
the admission of the claimant during the course of
his cross-examination that his income was `200/- per
day. He submits that the doctor has assessed the
disability to the particular limb at 30% and therefore
the Tribunal ought to have taken disability to the
whole body at 10% as against 20% taken by the
Tribunal. He submits that the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is just and proper and needs no
interference by this Court. Accordingly, he prays to
dismiss the appeal.
6. I have carefully appreciated the arguments
addressed on both sides and also perused the
material available on record.
7. The undisputed facts of the case are that
the claimant had met with an accident on 23.09.2012
in which the offending car bearing registration
No.KA-01/B-9957 which was insured by the 3rd
respondent-insurer was involved. In the said
accident, the claimant had suffered grievous injuries
and he was admitted as an inpatient in a private
hospital for about 12 days. The claimant was aged
about 59 years at the time of accident. He had
suffered fracture of tibia and fibula of his left leg.
The doctor who had examined him had assessed the
disability to the particular limb at 30%, and
accordingly, issued the disability certificate as per
Ex.P-9. The Tribunal has erred in taking the whole
body disability at 20% instead of 10% as rightly
contended by the learned Counsel for the Insurer.
8. In the absence of substantial evidence to
prove the income, the Tribunal ought to have taken
the notional income of the claimant at `6,500/-
having regard to the income chart determined by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the
purpose of disposal of motor accident claims cases
before the Lok Adalath, instead of `6,000/- per
month. The multiplier applicable having regard to the
age of the injured would be '9'. In the said event, the
claimant would be entitled for a compensation of
`70,200/- towards loss of future income due to
disability as against `86,400/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
9. Having regard to the nature of injuries and
the treatment undergone by the claimant, he would
be entitled for a total sum of `50,000/- towards pain
and suffering as against `30,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal. The compensation awarded towards medical
expenses remains unaltered.
10. Towards loss of amenities in future life, the
claimant is entitled for a sum of `30,000/- as against
the sum of `20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Towards incidental expenses, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal remains unaltered.
11. The Tribunal has not granted any
compensation towards loss of income during laidup
period. Having regard to the age of the claimant and
the nature of injuries sustained by him, a sum of
`19,500/- being three months income, is awarded to
the claimant towards loss of income during laidup
period.
12. Therefore, in all, the claimant would be
entitled for a sum of `2,29,700/- as against a sum of
`1,96,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced
amount of compensation shall also carry interest at
6% per annum. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
The Miscellaneous First Appeal is
allowed in part.
The claimant is entitled for a total
compensation of `2,29,700/- as against the
amount of `1,96,400/- awarded by the
Tribunal. The enhanced compensation
amount awarded shall carry interest at 6%
per annum from the date of petition till
realization.
Since the liability of respondent no.3-
Insurer is undisputed, the enhanced amount
of compensation with interest shall be
deposited by respondent no.3-Insurer
before the Tribunal within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of the
certified copy of this judgment.
Since the enhanced amount is a
meager amount, the claimant is permitted
to withdraw the entire amount after deposit
before the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CLK /K K
