Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ranganatha vs Sri. Dhananjaya H.N on 1 July, 2022
Bench: Anant Ramanath Hegde
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
M.F.A.NO.8231 OF 2016 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RANGANATHA,
S/O NAGARAJU,AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/O SETTIKEREGUDLU,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
NOW R/AT KUNDUR VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAMESH K.R, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI. DHANANJAYA H.N.
S/O NAGARAJU,AGED 52 YEARS,
HANDANAHALLI (POST)
NITTUR HOBLI,GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572101.
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S.M.TOWERS, 2ND FLOOR,
11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560002.
BY ITS MANAGER. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ASHOK N PATIL, ADV. FOR R2,
V/O/DT: 10.11.2017, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173 (1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1624/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, MACT-XI, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
2
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking
enhancement of compensation challenging the judgment
and award dated 07.09.2016 in MVC No.1624/2014 passed
by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, XI,
Tumakuru.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal.
3. Heard the learned Advocate for the appellant
and the learned advocate for respondent No.2. Notice to
respondent No.1 is dispensed vide order dated 10.11.2017
as there is no dispute over the liability.
4. There is no dispute over the fact that the
accident took place on 28.08.2014 at 1.00 p.m. near
Muddenahalli Gate, Settikere Gudlu Village. The claimant
was working as Plumber. The accident took place on
account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of
Bolero Car bearing Reg No.KA-06-N-4407 while the
claimant was proceeding towards his village Settikere
Gudlu. As a result, the claimant has sustained the
following injuries:-
1) Grade-I compound fracture of both bones in
the left leg.
2) Grade-II compound fracture shaft left femur.
3) Head injury i.e., CLW eyebrow.
5. The claimant filed a claim petition seeking
compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The
doctor examined as PW-2, stated that the claimant has
suffered 60% disability to the left leg and 20% disability to
the whole body. The Tribunal after considering both the
oral and both evidence and taking the income of the
claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month and the disability
suffered by the claimant at 20% awarded the
compensation as under:-
1 Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs.1,41,083/-
3 Conveyance, Nourishing food Rs.15,000/-
and attendant charges
4 Loss of income during the laid- Rs.18,000/-
up period
5 Loss of income due to Rs.2,30,400/-
permanent disability
6 Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/-
7 Future medical expenses Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.4,49,483/-
6. The appellant is seeking enhancement.
7. The learned advocate for the appellant would
submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
on the lower side and the Tribunal should have taken
income at Rs.20,000/- however, it has rejected the claim
relating to the income of Rs.20,000/- per month and only
taken income of Rs.6,000/-. In the absence of proof
relating to the income, as per the chart prepared by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, notional income
should be taken of Rs.8500/- per month as the accident
occurred in the year 2014. Under the circumstances, this
Court holds that the income of the claimant is to be taken
as Rs.8500/- per month. Therefore, the claimant is
entitled to the enhancement of compensation under the
head 'loss of earning' at Rs.8500X12X16X20%=Rs.
3,26,400/-.
8. It is forthcoming from the records that the
claimant was inpatient for 16 days. Under the
circumstances, compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded
under the head 'pain and suffering' is on the lower side.
The claimant has suffered 60% disability to the left leg and
20% disability to the whole body. This Court is of opinion
that compensation under the said head is to be enhanced
by another Rs.25,000/-.
9. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under the head of medical expenses, conveyance,
nourishment, diet and attendant charges and future
medical expenses is just and proper and does not require
any modification.
10. The claimant has taken treatment as an in-
patient for 16 days. The Tribunal has awarded
Rs.18,000/- towards income during the laid-up period.
Considering the nature of the injuries and also disability
suffered by the claimant, this Court is of opinion that
compensation to be awarded under the head 'laid-up
period' would be Rs.8500X3=Rs. 25,500/-.
11. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- under
the head of loss of amenities. Considering the fact that
the claimant was aged 32 years at the time of the accident
and the doctor has given evidence stating that the
claimant has suffered 60% disability to the left leg and
20% disability to the whole body, this Court is the opinion
that compensation is to be enhanced by Rs.20,000/- under
the said head.
12. Thus, in all the claimant is entitled to
enhanced compensation as under:-
1 Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/-
2 Medical expenses -
3 Conveyance, Nourishing food -
and attendant charges
4 Loss of income during the laid- Rs.7,500/-
up period
5 Loss of income due to Rs.96,000/-
permanent disability
6 Loss of amenities Rs.20,000/-
7 Future medical expenses -
Total Enhanced Compensation Rs.1,48,500/-
13. Hence, the following:-
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment
and award dated 07.09.2016 passed by the Additional Senior
Civil Judge and MACT XI, Tumakuru in MVC No.1624/2014 is
modified.
(ii) The appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.1,48,500/- along with interest @ 6% p.a.
from the date of the petition till realisation.
(iii) The 2nd respondent/insurance company shall
deposit the amount after deducting the amount, if any, already
paid within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
(iv) In all other aspects, the award of the Tribunal is
undisturbed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HD
