Karnataka High Court
Manjunath S/O Chandrakanth ... vs Hanmanthraya S/O Shivasharnappa ... on 23 June, 2022
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
MFA No.30053/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATH S/O CHANDRAKANTH RAVOOR
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR WORK,
R/OJEWARGI (K), TQ.JEWARGI, DIST. GULBARGA
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.CHAITANYAKUMAR CHANDRIKI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HANMANTHRAYA S/O SHIVASHARNAPPA
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: DRIVE OF AUTO,
R/O KOLKARA, TQ. JEWARGI, DIST. GULBARGA
2. NINGANNA S/O MALLANNA GADESURE
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF AUTO,
R/O KOLKURA, TQ. JEWARGI, DIST. GULBARGA
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
P.B.NO47, JAWALI COMPLEX,
SUPER MARKET, GULBARGA
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.J.AUGUSTIN, ADVOCATE
NOTICE TO R1 & R2 DISPENSED WITH)
2
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 28.10.2011 PASSED BY THE MACT AT
JEWARGI, IN MVC NO.337/2009 AND CONSEQUENTLY BE
PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM
RS.1,29,200/- TO RS.8,00,000/-.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant-petitioner
under Section 173(1) of M.V.Act, challenging the
judgment and award dated 28.10.2011 passed in MVC
No.337/2009 by the MACT, Jewargi, seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred with the ranks occupied by them before the
Tribunal.
3. The factual matrix leading to the case are
that the claimant has suffered accidental injuries and
filed a claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act
seeking compensation.
4. After appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence, the tribunal has awarded the
compensation of Rs.1,29,200/- with interest @ 6% to
the petitioner.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and
award passed by the tribunal, the appellant-petitioner
has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
6. Heard the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondent No.3-insurer.
Perused the records.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant-petitioner is that the petitioner was
earning Rs.6,000/- per month, but the tribunal has
taken the income @ Rs.3,000/- per month, which is
on lower side. He would also contend that the
compensation awarded under the other heads is also
on lower side. Hence, sought for enhancement of
compensation.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent -Insurance Company would support the
order of the tribunal
9. There is no dispute of the fact that the
petitioner has suffered accidental injuries. The wound
certificate disclose that he has suffered supracondylar
fracture of right femur. The medical evidence disclose
that the petitioner has suffered 25-30% disability to
the whole body. However, the tribunal has taken the
disability to an extent of 15% to the whole body. No
illegality is found with the order regarding the
disability @ 15% taken by the tribunal.
10. Further, the tribunal has taken the income
of the petitioner at Rs.3,000/- per month. Admittedly
the accident is of the year 2008. As per the Lok
Adalath Chart, this Court is consistently taking the
notional income of Rs.4,250/- per month for the
accident occurred in the year 2008. Hence, the
income taken by the tribunal is on lower side. The
tribunal has applied the proper multiplier 18
considering the age. Hence, the loss of future income
would works out to Rs.1,37,700/- (Rs.4,250/- x 12 x
18 x 15%).
11. The tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.6,000/- under the head of loss of income during
laid up period for two months. Considering the
monthly income of the petitioner, the loss of income
during laid up period would be Rs.8,500/- as against
Rs.6,000/- awarded by the tribunal.
12. The tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.3,000/- towards medical expenses based on the
medical records, which does not call for any
interference.
13. The tribunal has also awarded
compensation of Rs.3,000/- under the head of
attendant charges, extra nourishment and conveyance
charges and travelling expenses, which is reasonable
and does not call for any interference.
14. The tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.10,000/- each under the head of loss of pain and
suffering and loss of amenities, which appears to be
on lower side. Hence, under both the heads the
petitioner is entitled for Rs.20,000/- each.
15. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.1,92,200/- as against
Rs.1,29,200/- awarded by the tribunal under the
following heads;
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1. Pain & suffering Rs.20,000/-
2. Loss of income during laid up Rs.1,37,700/-
period
3. Medical expenses Rs.3,000/-
4. Loss of amenities Rs.20,000/-
5. Loss of income during laid up Rs.8,500/-
period
6. Attendant charges and extra Rs.3,000/-
nourishment and conveyance
charges and traveling expenses
Total Rs.1,92,200/-
16. Hence, the appeal needs to be allowed in
part. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
(a) The appeal is allowed in part.
(b) The petitioner is held entitled for total
compensation of Rs.1,92,200/- as against
Rs.1,29,200/- awarded by the tribunal.
(c) The enhanced compensation shall carry
interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition
till realization.
(d) The respondent No.3-Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation with accrued interest thereon
within six weeks from today.
(e) The entire compensation shall be released in
favour of the petitioner.
(f) The petitioner is not entitled interest for the
delayed period of 328 days in filing the appeal
as per order dated 06.03.2014.
Sd/-
JUDGE
msr
