Muppinappa S/O Hanmanthappa ... vs Renuka W/O Heggappa Tavaragondi
2022 Latest Caselaw 850 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 19 T H DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

             M.F.A. No.100053/2015 (MV)

BET WEEN

MUPPINAPPA,
S/O HANMANTHAPPA B ANAKAR,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICU LT URE,
R/O AIRAN I VILLA GE, TQ: RANEB ENNUR,
DISTR ICT: HAVERI.
                                            ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PATIL M.H., ADVOCAT E)

AND

1.    SMT.RENU KA
      W/O HEGGA PPA TAVARAGOND I,
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE,
      R/O AREMALLAPUR A, TQ: RANEB ENNUR,
      DIST: HAVER I.

2.   SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
     E/8, EPIP RHCO IN DU STRIAL AREA,
     SITAPURE, JAIPUR-302022,
     RAJAST HAN STATE.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE 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
THE J UDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.08.2 014 PASS ED IN
MVC No.909/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDIT IONA L
SENIOR CIVIL JU DGE AND MEMB ER, ADDITIONA L MOTOR
ACCIDENT   CLAIMS   TRIB UNAL,  RANEB ENNUR,   PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PET IT ION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
                               2




     THIS APPEA L COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, TH IS DAY
THE COU RT DELIVERED THE FOLL OWING:

                          JUDGMENT

The claimant being not satisfied with the amount

of compensation awarded by the Court of Addl.Senior

Civil Judge and Member, Addl.M.A.C.T., Ranebennur

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal', for brevity)

in MVC No.909/2012 vide its judgment and award

dated 02.08.2014 has preferred this appeal seeking

enhancement of compensation amount.

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 purpose of

convenience.

3. The undisputed facts of the case that would

be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal

are:

The injured claimant along with others was

traveling in a TATA Magic passenger vehicle bearing

registration No.KA-27/A-3939 on 25.04.2012 from

Airani to Ranebennur and when the said vehicle

reached near Aremallapura village, the driver of the

said vehicle who was driving the same in a rash and

negligent manner lost control of the vehicle and

dashed against the roadside tree and caused the

accident. As a result, the claimant in the present

case along with others had sustained injuries and the

claimant was treated in a private hospital and he also

suffered disability due to the injuries sustained by

him in the accident. The claimant therefore had filed

a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the 'Act') claiming

compensation from the owner and insurer of the said

vehicle in respect of the injuries caused to him in the

road traffic accident that had taken place on

25.04.2012. The Tribunal had partly allowed the said

claim petition and awarded a compensation of

`1,84,183/- to the claimant with interest at 6% per

annum from the date of petition till realization and

had saddled the liability on the 2nd respondent-

insurance company who had insured the said vehicle

which was valid as on the date of accident.

4. Learned counsel for the claimant submits

that the amount of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal under all the heads is on the lower side. He

submits that the notional income of the injured has

been taken at `6,000/- per month whereas it ought

to have been taken at `6,500/- per month. He

submits that even towards pain and suffering and

loss of amenities, the compensation awarded is on

the lower side. Accordingly, he prays to allow the

appeal.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

the insurer submits that the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal is just and proper and needs no

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 not disputed, so

also the fact that the claimant had suffered injuries

in the said accident. The claimant who was aged

about 30 years as on the date of accident had

suffered multiple fractures and the disability to the

whole body has been considered by the Tribunal at

11%. The notional income of the injured claimant has

been taken at `6,000/- as against `6,500/- per

month in view of the income chart maintained by the

Karnataka Legal Services Authority for the purpose of

disposal of motor accident cases in the Lok Adalath.

The proper multiplier applicable in the case would be

'17' and therefore towards loss of future earning

capacity on account of the disability, the claimant

would be entitled for a sum of `1,45,860/- as against

`1,00,980/- awarded by the Tribunal.

8. Having regard to the nature of injuries and

the prolonged treatment undergone by the claimant,

I am of the view that towards pain and suffering, the

claimant is entitled `60,000/- as against `40,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation awarded

towards medical expenses remain unaltered. Towards

incidental expenses, the claimant is entitled for a

total sum of `10,000/- as against `4,000/- awarded

by the Tribunal. Towards loss of income during laid

up period, the claimant is entitled for a compensation

of `19,500/- as against `6,000/- and towards loss of

amenities and enjoyment of life, the claimant is

entitled for a compensation of `30,000/- as against

`5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore in all,

the claimant is entitled for a total sum of `2,93,563/-

as against `1,84,183/- awarded by the Tribunal which

would be as follows:

1 Loss of earning capacity `1,45,860/-

    2     Pain and suffering                     `60,000/-
    3     Medical expenses                       `28,203/-
    4     Incidental expenses                    `10,000/-
    5     Loss of income during laid             `19,500/-
          up period
    6     Loss   of   amenities    and              `30,000/-
          enjoyment of life
          Total                                `2,93,563/-
     9.     Accordingly, the following:
                          ORDER

            The    Miscellaneous      First    Appeal    is
     allowed in part.





             The        claimant           is        entitled       for     a

compensation of `2,93,563/- as against the amount of `1,84,183/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

Since the liability has not been disputed by the insurer, the 2 n d respondent- insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation Court with interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

The order passed by the Tribunal with regard to disbursement and deposit etc., shall remain unaltered and the same would also be applicable to the enhanced compensation amount.

SD/-

JUDGE

CLK