Karnataka High Court
Shri. Prakash S/O Yallappa ... vs The Tahasildar, Mundaragi on 7 March, 2022
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7 T H DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA
MFA NO.24626/2013 (MV-I)
Between:
Shri Prakash S/o. Yallappa Gosalad,
Age 36 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: JantliShirur, Tq.: Mundaragi,
Dist.: Gadag.
... Appellant
(By ShriSiddappa S.Sajjan, Advocate)
And:
1. The Tahasildar, Mundaragi, Gadag.
2. The Karnataka Government,
Insurance Department, Bengaluru.
... Respondents
(By Shri V.S. Kalasurmath, HCGP)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the
M.V. Act, ag ainst the Judgment and Award d ated
03.06.2013, p assed in MVC No.109/2012 on the file
of the District Judge and MACT at Gad ag, p artly
allowing the claim petition for compensation and
seeking enhancement of comp ensation.
This appeal coming on for admission, this day, the Court
delivered the following:
:2:
JUDGMENT
1. Being dissatisfied with the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.4,39,000/-,
the claimant is in appeal.
2. The fact that an accid ent occurred on
20.03.2012, which resulted in amputation of the
claimant's left leg above the knee is not in dispute.
The fact that the offend ing vehicle, a vehicle
belonging to the Government, was insured by the
respondent No.2 is also not in dispute.
3. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion
that since the Doctor had stated that there was 85%
physical imp airment to the left lower limb , it would
be approp riate to determine the whole body disability
as 28%. It has thereafter come to the conclusion that
the claimant was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- p.m.
and was entitled to a sum of Rs.2,68,800/- towards
loss of future earning cap acity; a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and agony; a sum of
Rs.11,029/- towards medical bills; a sum of
Rs.15,000/- towards nursing, attend ance and extra
nourishment; a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of
income during the p eriod of treatment; a sum of
Rs.15,000/- towards future unhapp iness and of
amenities; and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards
shortening of life sp an on account of the injures.
4. It is not in a serious dispute that that the
claimant was an agriculturist and consequently his
physical ability would be an essential need of his
livelihood . If a p erson was depending upon
ag ricultural work and looses a leg, the application of
the normal formula of 1/3 r d of disability of a limb, as
the d isability of the whole body, cannot be the
criteria. In fact in resp ect of a similar case, a
Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.102222/2016
by consid ering the case of similar amp utation has
deemed it appropriate to take the disab ility at 80%. I
am inclined to follow the said dictum and hold that
the claimant had suffered 80% d isability to his whole
body as ag ainst 28% disab ility determined b y the
Tribunal.
5. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly
income at Rs.5,000/-, since there was no
documentary evidence. There was ad mittedly no
documentary evid ence, hence, it would be
app ropriate to adopt the monthly income determined
by the Karnataka State Leg al Services Authority,
which in the present case would be Rs.6,500/- per
month.
6. It would also b e necessary to add future
prosp ects at the rate of 40% having reg ard to the
fact that the claimant was ag ed about 35 years as on
the d ate of accid ent and he has suffered 80%
disab ility. This would result in his income to be
Rs.9,100/- (Rs.6,500/- + 40%).
7. As the claimant was aged about 35 years,
a multiplier of 16 would be applicable. Consequently,
the claimant would be entitled a sum of
Rs.13,97,760/- (Rs.9,100/- x 12 x 16 x 80%)
towards loss of future earning capacity.
8. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and agony, the said
amount is req uired to be marg inally enhanced to
Rs.1,50,000/-.
9. Since the monthly income is now
determined as Rs.6,500/- and the loss of income
during the period of treatment is enhanced to
Rs.19,500/- (Rs.6,500/- x 3) as ag ainst Rs.15,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
10. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.15,000/- towards future unhappiness and loss of
amenities. In my view, having regard to the fact that
the claimant has lost one limb almost comp letely
rending him physically imp aired, it would be
app ropriate to award a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- under
the said head .
11. Compensation award ed by the Tribunal in a
sum of Rs.11,029/- towards medical b ills; a sum of
Rs.15,000/- towards nursing, attend ance and extra
nourishment; and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards
shortening of life span on account of injuries need no
interference and the same is affirmed.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part
and the Judgment and Award p assed by the Tribunal
is mod ified. Thus, the claimant would b e entitled to a
total comp ensation in a sum of Rs.17,58,289/-
instead of Rs.4,39,000/- award ed by the Tribunal
along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the
date of p etition till realization.
13. The respondents are d irected to deposit
the entire compensation amount along with interest
before the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimant
within a p eriod of four weeks from the d ate of receipt
of a copy of this ord er.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vnp*
