Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Vanita Ramachandra Bhat on 15 June, 2022
Bench: P.Krishna Bhat
-1-
MFA No. 24815 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
MFA NO. 24815 OF 2010 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, KIKINI ROAD,
KARWAR. REP. BY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SUJATA COMPLEX, P.B. ROAD,
HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. VANITA RAMACHANDRA BHAT,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: ANGANWADI
TEACHER/TAILOR, R/O NUTAN NAGAR, YELLAPUR
TOWN, TQ. YELLAPUR, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA.
2. ANANT S/O SHANKAR BHAGWAT,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O BAGINAKATTA,
YELLAPUR TOWN, TQ. YELLAPUR, DIST. UTTAR
Digitally signed
by SUJATA KANNADA.
SUBHASH
PAMMAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA,
3. GANAPATI SHANKAR BHAGWA,
DHARWAD
Date: 2022.06.28
17:51:02 +0530
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OFJEEP, R/O
BAGINKATTA, YELLAPUR TOWN, DIST. UTTAR
KANNADA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, NEERALGI & PATIL,
ADVOCATES FOR R1) (R2 & R3-SERVED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MV
ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.2.2010
-2-
MFA No. 24815 of 2010
PASSED BY THE ADDL. MACT, YELLAPUR IN MVC NO.104 OF 2008
WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The Insurer is in appeal calling in question the
judgment and award dated 25.2.2010 in MVC
No.104/2008 passed by the learned Addl. MACT, Yellapur
(for short, 'MACT') by which the claim petition was allowed
in part granting compensation of Rs.1,59,628/- with
interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of
petition till date of payment.
2. In view of the nature of contentions raised in
this appeal, a detailed reference to the facts are wholly
unnecessary and in any case the same has been dealt with
the impugned judgment and award.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurer
contends that Ex.P8-injury Certificate of the claimant
shows only fracture of base 3rd and 4th metatarsal, right
foot. He therefore contends that the assessment of
MFA No. 24815 of 2010
physical disability made by the learned MACT at 10% is
wholly without basis and evidence of PW2-doctor is not
liable to be accepted. He submits that since there is
nothing to show that the claimant was terminated from
her service as Anganwadi Teacher, no loss of income has
been suffered by her as well. He also submits that the
income of the deceased taken at Rs.3,750/- per month is
on the higher side and therefore, the compensation
awarded by the learned MACT is liable to be reduced.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/claimant submits that as per Chart prepared
by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which is
applied throughout the State of Karnataka, notional
income of a person for the accidental claims of the year
2008 is fixed at Rs.4,250/- and therefore, notional income
of the claimant is required to be taken at Rs.4,250/- per
month. He submitted that the claimant had suffered
fracture of base 3rd and 4th metatarsal bone. Therefore,
learned counsel submits that she had suffered physical
MFA No. 24815 of 2010
disability to the extent of 10% as stated by PW2-doctor
and the same has to be accepted. He therefore submitted
that the loss of income during laid up period is required to
be enhanced and the appeal filed by the insurance
company is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides
and I have perused the records.
6. The claimant was stated to be working as
Anganawadi Teacher at the material point of time and
there is no dispute that she has continued in the same
position even after the accident. Insofar as monthly
income of the claimant is concerned, even though her
salary emoluments was Rs.750/- per month, there is no
reason to depart from the notional income fixed in the
chart prepared by the KSLSA for the accidental claims of
the year 2008 which is Rs.4,250/- per month in this case.
The learned MACT had held that she could not work for a
period of three months and therefore, a sum of
MFA No. 24815 of 2010
Rs.12,750/- (Rs.4,250 x 3 months) is required to be
awarded towards loss of income during laid up period.
Medical records shows that she had suffered fracture of
base 3rd and 4th metatarsal bone. Taking into consideration
the nature of injury suffered by the claimant and since
there was no amputation of metatarsal bone, it is difficult
to accept that she would have suffered 10% of whole body
disability on account of such fracture. Accordingly, I am of
the view that whole body disability assessed by learned
MACT at 10% is without any justification and the said
component is required to be deleted as admittedly she has
continued in her service as Anganawadi Teacher as before.
In that view of the matter, compensation awarded by
leaned MACT is required to be recomputed as under:
Pain and suffering = Rs.30,000/-
Medical expenses = Rs.29,878/-
Conveyance charges = Rs. 2,000/-
Loss of comforts & amenities of life = Rs. 5,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period = Rs.12,750/-
Disfiguration and mental agony = Rs. 5,000/-
-----------------
Total = Rs.84,628/-
-----------------
MFA No. 24815 of 2010
7. Thus, in modification of the impugned award,
the claimant is entitled to total compensation of
Rs.84,628/- as against Rs.1,59,628/- awarded by the
learned MACT with interest thereon at 6% per annum from
the date of petition till date of payment. Excess amount if
any shall be refunded to the appellant-insurer forthwith.
Transmit the records to the learned MACT forthwith.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance
company is allowed in part to the extent indicated above.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
