Karnataka High Court
Sri. Manohar Poojary vs Sri. Karunakara on 4 March, 2022
Bench: J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
M.F.A.NO.4761/2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI MANOHAR POOJARY,
S/O RAGHURAMA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/O SULKANBETTU,
HATTIKUDHRU,
BASRUR VILLAGE,
KUNDAPURA TALUK - 576 3201
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI KARUNAKARA,
S/O BABU,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/O H.No.1-23,
BASRUR VILLAGE,
KUNDAPURA TALUK - 576 201
2. IFFCO TOKIYO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE: MANGALORE,
3RD FLOOR, LALBHAG TOWER,
BALLALBHAG, M.G.ROAD,
MANGALORE - 575 001
REP. BY ITS
BRANCH MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. R.SRINIVASAGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE COURT ORDER DTD: 21.02.2018,
R1 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
2
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
12.02.2018, PASSED BY MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
UDUPI (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA) KUNDAPURA, IN MVC
No.1127/2016 AND AWARD JUST AND REASONABLE
COMPENSATION CONSIDERING THE GRAVITY OF THE INJURY,
PERMANENT DISABILITIES AND OTHER SURROUNDING
CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND
ETC.,
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is Claimant's appeal for enhancement.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are
referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.
3. Claimant has filed this appeal seeking
enhancement contending that the compensation granted is
highly insufficient inadequate and disproportionate and as
such claimant is entitled for enhancement. The
compensation granted under various heads is on the lower
side.
4. It is the case of the claimant that on 28.04.2016
at 6.30 p.m. petitioner was travelling as pillion rider in
motor cycle bearing registration No.KA 20 ED 3580 from
Sharke side towards Vandse side. The rider of the motor
cycle drove it in a rash or negligent manner and near Nujadi
Cross, Vandse Village, the rider lost control as a result of
which they fell on the road resulting in claimant sustaining
injuries and permanent partial disability.
5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 has
remained absent.
6. Respondent No.2 has appeared and filed written
statement denying the mode of accident, age, avocation
income, avocation of the claimant, nature of the injury
sustained, medical expenses incurred. Though admitted the
coverage of the vehicle, respondent No.2 has contended
that its liability is subject to terms and conditions of the
policy.
7. During enquiry claimant has examined himself as
PW-1, the Doctor as PW-2 and relied upon Ex.P1 to 12.
8. Respondent No.2 has not led oral evidence, but
got marked the insurance policy as Ex.R1.
9. Vide impugned judgment and award, the
Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and granted
compensation in a sum of Rs.4,47,887/- as detailed below:
Heads Amount in
Rs.
Injury, pain and suffering 55,000/-
Medical expenses 65,267/-
Loss of earning during 3,900/-
treatment00
Loss of bed rest 63,000/-
Loss of future earning capacity 2,52,720/-
Conveyance, nourishment and 8,000/-
attendant charges
TOTAL 4,47,887/-
10. The respondent No.2 Insurance company has not
challenged the impugned judgment and award.
11. Loss of future earning: The incident has taken
place on 28.04.2016. At the time of accident, claimant was
aged 21 years. He has suffered (i) Comminuted fracture
patella left; (ii) Swollen neck; (iii) Tenderness per abdomen
and (iv) Swelling left side head injuries. Though claimant
claims that he was doing centering work and earning
Rs.20,000/- p.m, no evidence is placed on record to prove
the same. The Tribunal has taken his income on notional
basis as Rs.9,000/- p.m. As per the chart prepared by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which is based on
minimum wages, during the year 2016 the notional income
has to be taken at Rs.9,500/-. As per the medical evidence,
the claimant has sustained disability of 26% of left lower
limb. The Tribunal has taken the whole body disability as
13%. Since respondent No.2 has not challenged the same,
this Court has taken the whole body disability as 13%.
Since the claimant was aged 21 years, 18 multiplier taken
by the Tribunal is correct. Therefore the loss of earning due
to permanent partial disability is 9,500 x 12 x 13% x 18 =
2,66,760/- Thus under the head loss of future earnings, the
claimant is entitled for compensation in a sum of
Rs.2,66,760/- instead of 2,52,720/-.
12. Compensation for laid up period: The Tribunal
has granted compensation for laid up period in a sum of
Rs.63,000/- at the rate of Rs.9,000/- for a period of 7
months. Since the income is taken 9,500/- for a period of 7
months, the compensation works out to Rs.66,500/- instead
of Rs.63,000/-. The Tribunal has also granted compensation
in a sum of Rs.3,900/- under the head loss of earning
during treatment period. Since, compensation is granted
under the head loss of earning during laid up period, there
is no necessity to grant compensation under the head loss
of earning during treatment period and the same is
disallowed.
13. Medical expenses: Based on medical bills, the
Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.65,267/- and
therefore it requires no interference.
14. Pain and suffering: Having regard to the nature
of the injury sustained, treatment taken the Tribunal has
granted compensation in a sum of Rs.55,000/- under the
head pain and suffering. It reasonable and adequate and as
such requires no interference.
15. Food, Nourishment and Conveyance: The
Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.8,000/- under the
head Conveyance, nourishment and it is reasonable and
adequate and it requires no interference.
16. Thus, in all claimant is entitled for compensation
in a sum of Rs.4,61,527 as against Rs.4,47,887/- granted
by the Tribunal as detailed below.
Heads Amount granted Amount granted
by the Tribunal by this Court
In Rs. In Rs.
Injury, pain and 55,000-00 55,000-00
suffering
Medical expenses 65,267-00 65,267-00
Loss of earning 3,900-00 -
during treatment
Loss of bed rest 63,000-00 66,500-00
(Loss of earning
during laid up
period)
Loss of future earning 2,52,720-00 2,66,760-00
capacity
Conveyance, 8,000-00 8,000-00
nourishment and
attendant charges
TOTAL 4,47,887-00 4,61,527-00
17. Of course claimant is entitled for interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) Appellant/claimant is entitled for compensation in
a sum of Rs.4,61,527/- as against Rs.4,47,887/-
granted by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till realization (minus
the amount already paid/deposited)
(iii) The respondent No.2 Insurance company shall
deposit the compensation amount within a
period of six weeks from the date of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RR
