Karnataka High Court
Smt. B. Chitti vs K.R. Somashekara Reddy on 6 July, 2022
Bench: Anant Ramanath Hegde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4105 OF 2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SMT. B. CHITTI,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
W/O BABU
R/AT NO.4113 NEAR SARASWATHI TALKIES
HINDUPURA, ANANTHAPURA TALUK & DIST
ANDRAPRADESH
C/O INDRANI
W/O YELLAPPA
SHARADA COLONY
BASAVESHWAR NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 079.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.K.T. GURUDEV PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. K.R. SOMASHEKARA REDDY
S/O K.R. RAJA KRISHNA REDDY
LAVA KUSHA NAGAR
KONNAPPA AGRAHARA
HOSUR ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY POST
BANGALORE - 560 100.
2. THE MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD,
TP-HUB, NO.18, KRISHIBHAVANA
6TH FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
OPP. HUDSON CIRCLE
BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARUNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 SERVED)
2
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.04.2014 PASSED IN M.V.C
NO.382/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSE JUDGE, & XXI ACMM, MACT, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.K.T.Gurudev, the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant and Smt.Y.Arunal, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
2. Notice to respondent No.1 is served and is
unrepresented. There is no dispute relating to liability. The
only question before this Court is relating to the quantum.
3. The instant appeal is filed by the
claimant/appellant challenging the judgment and award
dated 04.04.2014 passed in MVC No.382/2013 on the file of
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal')
seeking enhancement of compensation.
4. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.2,02,053/- along with 6% p.a. under the following
heads:
i) Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000=00
ii) Medical expenses Rs. 9,053=00
iii) Loss of future earning Rs.1,53,000=00
iv) Loss of earning during
treatment Rs. 30,000=00
Rs.2,02,053=00
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the Doctor who has given evidence as PW.2 has
assessed the disability to the whole body at 29%. The
learned counsel submits that the claimant was working as a
tailor and also doing business of candles and on account of
the disability suffered by the claimant, he is not in a
position to work as a tailor and also not in a position to
carry-on candle business. The learned counsel brings to
the notice the court the evidence relating to the injury and
disability and it is also his case that the claimant was
inpatient for 88 days. The learned counsel would submit
since the claimant has suffered 29% disability to the whole
body and was inpatient for 88 days, the compensation
awarded under all the heads is on the lower side and that
the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the
head loss of amenities and incidental expenses.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 would
submit that the Tribunal has taken the disability at 15% i.e.
almost 50% of the whole body disability to the whole body
assessed by the doctor, as such, compensation awarded is
on the higher side in absence of proof with regard to the
income and considering the rival contentions made by the
parties.
7. It is forthcoming from the records, except the
say of the claimant that he was working as a tailor and
doing candle business, nothing is placed on record to accept
the said contention. In the absence of any proof relating to
avocation, the Tribunal has assessed the income at
Rs.5,000/- per month. In absence of proof relating to the
income, the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority would be the guideline for taking
notional income. The accident occurred in the year 2012
and the national income would be Rs.7,000/- per month.
8. In the case of Erudhyaya Priya v. State
Express Transport Corporation Ltd. reported in 2020
SCC Online 601, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also taken
into consideration the future prospects while assessing the
loss of future income in the case of the victim who has
suffered 31% disability. In this case, the Doctor assessed
the disability to the whole body at 29%. Under these
circumstances, this Court would deem it appropriate to
award 40% of the income of the claimant. In that event,
notional income would be Rs.9,800/- per month
(Rs.7,000x40%). The Tribunal has assessed the disability
at 15% and this finding is not disputed by the insurer.
Looking into the nature of the injury, this Court is of the
opinion that 20% disability is to be taken into consideration
to calculate the loss of future income. The 'loss of future
income' would be Rs.3,99,840=00
(Rs.9,800x12x17x20%) as against award of Rs.1,53,000/-.
9. The Tribunal has also considered that the
claimant was inpatient for 88 days. Under such
circumstances, the award of compensation of Rs.10,000/-
under the head 'Pain and Suffering' is inadequate, this
Court would deem it appropriate to award Rs.1,00,000/-
under the head of 'Pain and Suffering'.
10. As far as the award of medical expenses of
Rs.9,053/-the same is supported by bills and there is no
need to award more under the said head.
11. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- under
the head 'loss of earning' during the laid-up period.
Considering that the claimant was inpatient for 88 days and
the income is taken at Rs.7,000/- per month, this Court
would be appropriate to take laid up period as five months.
Accordingly, the compensation under the head 'loss of
earning' is enhanced by Rs.5,000/- to Rs.35,000/-.
12. It is also noticed that no compensation is
awarded under the head 'Loss of Amenities'. Considering
the disability assessed by the Doctor at 29% to the whole
body, this Court deems it appropriate to award
Rs.50,000/- under the head 'Loss of Amenities' and no
compensation is not awarded under the head 'incidental
expenses'. Again considering that the claimant was
inpatient for 88 days, another Rs.25,000/- is awarded
under the head 'incidental expenses'.
13. Though the Doctor has stated in his evidence
that the claimant needs future treatment and surgical
intervention to his legs, no specific figure is forthcoming
relating to the 'future medical expenses. This Court
deems it appropriate to award Rs.10,000/- under the said
head considering the nature of the injury.
14. Accordingly, the compensation awarded to the
claimant under the following heads is enhanced, and the
details are as under:-
Sl.No. Heads of Description Compensation
enhanced by this
Court (Rs.)
1. Pain and suffering 1,00,000/-
2. Loss of future earning 3,99,840/-
3. Loss of earnings during 35,000/-
the treatment period
4. Loss of Amenities 50,000/-
5. Incidental expenses 25,000/-
6. Future medical 10,000/-
expenses
TOTAL 6,19,840/-
Less: compensation 2,02,053/-
awarded by the
Tribunal
TOTAL 4,17,787/-
15. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part. The impugned
judgment and award dated 04.04.2014 passed in MVC
No.382/2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru is modified.
(ii) The claimant is entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.4,17,787/- with interest @ 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till payment.
(iii) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to
the jurisdictional tribunal.
(iv) In all other aspects, the award of the Tribunal
stands.
Sd/-
JUDGE
UN
