Karnataka High Court
Sathish K H vs The Managing Director on 8 March, 2022
Bench: J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
M.F.A.NO.5606/2017 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SATHISH K.H.
S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,
AGED 25 YEARS,
R/A No.1577, 1ST MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
KALYAN NAGAR,
T.DASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 057
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D.S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
K S R T C DIVISION,
DOUBLE ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027
...RESPONDENT
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF
THE XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND THE M A C T, AT
BENGALURU, (S C C H - 23) IN M.V.C.No.2275/2016, DATED
17.02.2017, BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND IN ENHANCING
THE AWARD OF THE TRIBUNAL AND IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
2
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is posted for admission, with the
consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the same is
taken up for final disposal.
2. This is an appeal filed by the petitioner seeking
enhancement.
3. For the sake of convenience the parties are
referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.
4. Petitioner has filed this appeal seeking
enhancement contending that the compensation granted is
highly insufficient, inadequate and disproportionate and as
such petitioner is entitled for enhancement. The
compensation granted under various heads requires
modification.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that on
08.03.2016 at 9.30 a.m. he was riding motor cycle bearing
registration No.KA 02/HD 747 near Chokkasandra junction,
NH-4 Service road, Dasarahalli, Bengaluru. A KSRTC bus
bearing registration No.KA 40 F 504 (hereinafter referred to
as offending vehicle), belonging to respondent, driven by its
driver in a rash or negligent manner came from behind the
petitioner and dashed against his motor cycle. As a result
the petitioner sustained injuries and permanent partial
disability.
6. Respondent appeared and filed written
statement denying the mode of accident, age, avocation
income, nature of the injury sustained, medical expenses
incurred. The accident occurred due to the fault of the
petitioner.
7. During enquiry petitioner has examined himself
as PW-1, the Doctor as PW-2 and relied upon Ex.P1 to 14.
8. On behalf of Respondent one witness is
examined as RW-1.
9. Vide impugned judgment and award, the
Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and granted
compensation in a sum of Rs.1,87,149/- (but wrongly
stated as 2,27,149/-) as detailed below:
Heads Amount
in Rs.
Pain and sufferings 40,000
Loss of future earnings 75,600
Medical expenses 61,549
Conveyance, nutritious, 15,000
food and nourishment
Loss of income during 10,000
laid up period
Loss of happiness, 15,000
inconvenience,
discomfort
Future medical 10,000
expenses
TOTAL 1,87,149
Wrongly shown as 2,27,149
10. The respondent has not challenged the
impugned judgment and award.
11. Thus, petitioner is seeking enhancement
contending that the compensation granted is on the lower
side and needs interference by this Court. Therefore, it has
become necessary to examine whether the compensation
granted under various heads are just and proper and if not
whether it is a fit case for interference.
12. Loss of future earnings: The incident has taken
place on 08.03.2016. At the time of accident, petitioner was
aged 24 years. He claims that he was working as a travel
executive at LVB Travels, Bengaluru on a monthly salary of
Rs.25,000/- p.m. However, he has not produced any
documents to evidence the said fact. Therefore, the
Tribunal has taken his income on notional basis as
Rs.7,000/- 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/-.
12.1 As per the medical evidence, the petitioner has
sustained 12.5% disability of whole body. The Tribunal has
analysed the evidence of PW-2, who is non treating Doctor
and observed that he has examined the petitioner on
25.01.2017 in connection with determination of disability
after a long gap. Considering the cross-examination of PW-
2, wherein he has admitted that the fracture is united,
there is no shortening of leg and there is no limping and the
petitioner can lead a normal life with little difficulty, the
Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at 5%. I
find no reason to interfere with the same. Since the
petitioner was aged 24 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 18 x 5% =
1,02,600/- Thus under the head loss of future earnings, the
petitioner is entitled for compensation in a sum of
Rs.1,02,600/- instead of 75,600/-.
13. Compensation for laid up period: The Tribunal
has granted compensation for laid up period in a sum of
Rs.10,000/-. Having regard to the nature of the injury
sustained by the petitioner, it would be reasonable to hold
that he was under treatment for a period of 2 months.
Since the income is taken 9,500/- for a period of 2 months,
the compensation works out to Rs.19,000/- instead of
Rs.10,000/- granted by the Tribunal.
14. Medical expenses: Based on medical bills, the
Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.61,549/- and
therefore it requires no interference.
15. Pain and suffering: Having regard to the nature
of the injury sustained, treatment taken the Tribunal has
granted compensation in a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the
head pain and suffering. It reasonable and adequate and as
such requires no interference.
16. Food, Nourishment and Conveyance: The
Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.15,000/- under
the head Conveyance, nourishment and it is reasonable and
adequate and it requires no interference.
17. Loss of amenities: The Tribunal has granted
compensation in a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the loss of
happiness and discomfort. Having regard to the nature of
injury sustained, it call for no interference.
18. Future medical expenses: The Tribunal has also
granted compensation in a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the
head future medical expenses. Having regard to the nature
of injury sustained, it is reasonable and calls for no
interference.
19. Thus, in all petitioner is entitled for
compensation in a sum of Rs.2,23,149 as against
Rs.1,87,149/- (but wrongly shown as 2,27,149) granted by
the Tribunal as detailed below.
Heads Amount granted Amount granted
by the Tribunal by this Court
In Rs. In Rs.
Pain and sufferings 40,000 40,000
Loss of future 75,600 1,02,600
earnings
Medical expenses 61,549 61,549
Conveyance, 15,000 15,000
nutritious, food and
nourishment
Loss of income during 10,000 19,000
laid up period
Loss of happiness, 15,000 15,000
inconvenience,
discomfort
Future medical 10,000 10,000
expenses
TOTAL 1,87,149 2,23,149
(wrongly shown as
2,27,149)
20. Of course petitioner 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/petitioner is entitled for compensation
in a sum of Rs.2,23,149/- as against 1,87,149/-
(wrongly shown as 2,27,149/-) 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
