Karnataka High Court
Srinivas S/O Venkataramana vs Laxmibai W/O Vadiraj Katti on 11 January, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11 T H DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
M.F.A. No.103999/2017 (MV)
BET WEEN
SRINIVAS S/O VENKAT ARAMANA,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: HOTEL SU PPLIER, NOW NIL,
R/O # 317, 1 S T MAIN, 5 T H CROSS,
JALINA GAR, DAVANAGERE,
DEVARAJ U RS LAYOU T, DAVANAGERE,
NOW AT GANDHINAGAR,
DHARWAD-580004.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI HANAMANT R.LATUR, ADVOCAT E)
AND
1. LAX MIBAI W/O VADIRAJ KATTI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BU SINESS,
R/O HAVER I, T Q: & DIST : HAVERI,
PIN: 581110.
2. THE MANAGER,
U NIVERSAL SOMP O GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
OP P: HOSU R DEPOT ,
M.V.P.COLLEGE, HOSUR,
HUBB ALLI-5800 21,
TQ. & DIST: DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAGARAJ C.KOLLOOR I, ADVOCAT E FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEA L IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEH ICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST
2
THE J UDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.03.2 017 PASS ED IN
MVC No.318/ 2015 ON T HE FILE OF T HE III ADDIT IONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JU DGE AND MEMB ER, ADDITIONA L MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIB UNAL, DHARWAD, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PET IT ION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEA L COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, TH IS DAY
THE COU RT DELIVERED THE FOLL OWING:
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal is filed by the claimant being
not satisfied with the comp ensation award ed by the
Court of III Addl.Senior Civil Judge and Member,
Addl. M.A.C.T., Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as
the 'Tribunal', for brevity) in MVC No.318/2015 vide
its judgment and award dated 31.03.2017.
2. Though this appeal is listed for admission
with the consent of the learned counsels appearing
for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final
disposal. The parties to this appeal are referred to by
their rankings 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 had filed MVC No.318/2015 before
the Tribunal claiming compensation of `12,67,600/-
with interest, towards the injuries suffered by him in
the road traffic accident that had taken place on
26.01.2015. It is the case of the claimant that on
26.01.2015 when he was walking on the roadside on
Old P.B. Road, Hubballi, the offending car bearing
registration No.KA-27/M-7688 which was driven in a
rash and negligent manner by its driver dashed
against him and as a result, he suffered grievous
injuries. Immediately thereafterwards he was shifted
to KIMS Hospital, Hubballi, wherein he was treated as
an inpatient for 21 days. It is the case of the
claimant that he had suffered disability as a result of
the injury suffered in the accident. Accordingly, he
had filed the said claim petition under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the 'Act').
After service of notice in the said claim petition, the
insurer had appeared and filed its detailed statement
of objection while the owner had remained absent.
The Tribunal vide the impugned judgment and award
had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded
compensation of `3,50,000/- with interest at 9% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of
deposit. Since the offending vehicle was duly insured,
the liability to pay the compensation was saddled on
the insurer of the vehicle. Being not satisfied with
the amount of compensation awarded, the claimant is
before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the claimant submits
that the accident is of the year 2015 and therefore
having regard to the income chart maintained by the
Karnataka Legal Services Authority for the purpose of
disposal of motor accident cases in the Lok Adalath,
the notional income of the claimant ought to have
been taken at `8,000/- per month as against
`6,000/- per month taken by the Tribunal. He
submits that the compensation awarded under other
heads are also on the lower side. He further submits
that though the doctor has assessed the disability to
the limbs at 61%, the Tribunal had considered
disability to the whole body only at 10% whereas it
ought to have been taken at 20%. Accordingly, he
prays to allow the appeal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
the insurer has argued in support of the impugned
judgment and award and submits that the Tribunal
has awarded a just and proper compensation and
therefore it does not call for any interference.
6. I have carefully appreciated the arguments
addressed on both sides and also perused the
material available on record.
7. The accident in question is undisputed so
also the fact that the claimant had suffered injuries
in the said accident. It is also not in dispute that the
offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurer as
on the date of the accident.
8. The accident in question had taken place on
26.01.2015. In the absence of sufficient evidence to
prove the income of the claimant, the Tribunal ought
to have fallen back on the income chart maintained
by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority for the
purpose of taking into consideration the notional
income of the claimant. As per the said chart in
respect of the accident that had taken place in the
year 2015, the notional income is required to be
taken at `8,000/- per month. As rightly contended by
the learned counsel for the claimant, the Tribunal
ought to have considered the disability at 20% to the
whole body having regard to the evidence of the
doctor who was examined as PW2. The proper
multiplier applicable in the case is '13'. Therefore,
towards loss of future earning, the claimant would be
entitled for a sum of `2,49,600/- as against
`94,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Towards pain and
suffering, medical expenditure and future treatment,
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal remains
unaltered. Towards attendant charges and other
miscellaneous expenses, the claimant is entitled for a
sum of `15,000/- as against `5,000/-. Towards loss
of amenities, the claimant is entitled for a sum of
`30,000/- as against `10,000/-. Towards loss of
income during laid up period, he is entitled for a sum
of `24,000/- instead of `10,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for a
total compensation of `5,49,600/- as against
`3,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly,
the following:
ORDER
The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in
part.
The claimant is entitled for a compensation of
`5,49,600/- as against the amount of `3,50,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced
compensation amount awarded shall carry interest at
6% per annum.
The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation amount with interest within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order.
The terms regarding disbursement, deposit etc.,
passed by the Tribunal would be applicable even in
respect of the enhanced amount of compensation.
SD/-
JUDGE
CLK
