Karnataka High Court

Sri. Shivanna vs Kantharaju on 10 March, 2022

Bench: J.M.Khazi

                            1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

             THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

                M.F.A.NO.5766/2017 (MV)
BETWEEN:

SRI. SHIVANNA,
S/O MALLANNA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O CHIKKA GOOLA VILLAGE,
KASABA, SIRA TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
                                          ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI K.N.SUNIL, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI K.R.RAMESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.     KANTHARAJU,
       S/O JAVALINGAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
       R/AT JAVANAHALLI VILLAGE,
       BRAHMASANDRA POST,
       SIRA TAUK,
       TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101

2.     THE NATIONAL INSURANCE
       COMPANY LIMITED,
       BRANCH OFFICE:
       KASTHURI MANSION, M.G.ROAD,
       BEHIND KRISHNA TALKIES,
       ABOVE CORPORATION BANK,
       TUMKUR - 572 101
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
      R1 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
                                     2



     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
6/1/2017 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL
MACT,     SIRA    IN    MVC    NO.54/2015         BY    ENHANCING     THE
COMPENSATION AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND ETC.,

     THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
28.02.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                          JUDGMENT

This is an appeal by the petitioner seeking

enhancement for the injuries and permanent partial

disability sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident

dated 23.06.2014.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are

referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.

3. Petitioner has filed this appeal seeking

enhancement contending that the compensation granted is

highly insufficient, inadequate and disproportionate and as

such he is entitled for enhancement. The compensation

granted under various heads is on the lower side and needs

enhancement.

Facts:

4. It is the case of the petitioner that on

23.06.2014 at about 2.00 p.m. petitioner and another

person were walking on the left side of the road near

Basavanahalli gate on Sira - Mysuru Road, Bukkapatna

Hobli, Sira Taluk. At that time rider of motor cycle bearing

registration No.KA 64 E 5996 coming from Sira side dashed

against the petitioner. As a result of the accident, he

sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to

Government Hospital, Sira and from there to Hemavathi

Hospital, Tumakuru. He was in-patient for 15 days.

Thereafter he took treatment as out patient and spent

Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical and other incidental

charges. At the time of accident, petitioner was doing

agricultural work and earning Rs.12,000/- p.m. Due to

accidental injuries, his earning capacity is reduced.

5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 has

remained absent and as such he was placed Ex-parte..

6. Respondent No.2 has appeared and filed written

statement denying the fact of accident and petitioner

sustaining injuries. The involvement of the motor cycle

bearing registration No.KA 64 E 5996 is denied. The age,

avocation income, avocation of the petitioner, nature of the

injury sustained, medical expenses incurred is also denied.

7. During enquiry petitioner has examined himself

as PW-1, the Doctor as PW-2 and relied upon Ex.P1 to 13.

8. Respondent No.2 has not led oral evidence.

9. Vide impugned judgment and award, the

Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and granted

compensation in a sum of Rs.2,36,300/- as detailed below:

                       Heads                   Amount in
                                                 Rs.
          Loss of future income                  1,18,800
          Pain and sufferings                      25,000



        Loss    of    income    during                7,500
        treatment
        Medical, conveyance, Nutrition               45,000
        and Attendant charges
        Loss of future happiness and                 20,000
        amenities
        Future medical expenses                      20,000

        TOTAL                                  2,36,300

10. The respondent No.2 Insurance company 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 or whether

it is a case for interference.

12. Thus petitioner is seeking enhancement of the

compensation contending that the compensation under

various heads is not sufficient and requires interference.

13. The date of accident is 23.06.2014. At the time

of accident, the petitioner was aged 55 years. Though he

claims that he was earning Rs.12,000/- p.m., he has not

produced any document to evidence the said fact. As per

the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services

Authority, which is based on minimum wages, during the

year 2014 the notional income is required to be taken at

Rs.8,000/-. Keeping this fact in mind let me examine

whether the compensation granted under various heads

requires interference.

14. Loss of future earnings: As per the medical

evidence placed on record, including the testimony of PWs-

1 and 2, the petitioner has suffered permanent partial

disability of 36% of the right lower limb. For whole body,

the disability would come to 12%. Since the petitioner was

aged 55 years at the time of accident, the appropriate

multiplier 11 taken by the Tribunal is correct. Therefore,

compensation under head loss of income calculated at

Rs.1,18,800/- by the Tribunal is correct i.e., 8,000 x 12 x

11 x 12% = 1,26,720/- and it does not require any

interference by this Court.

15. Compensation for laid up period: The Tribunal

has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.7,500/- taking

the period of treatment as one month. Having regard to the

fact that the petitioner has suffered permanent partial

disability and nature of the injury sustained by him, it

would be appropriate if the laid up period is treated as 3

months. At the rate of Rs.8,000/-, the petitioner is entitled

for compensation in sum of Rs.24,000/- as against

Rs.7,500/- by the Tribunal.

16. Medical, Conveyance, Nutrition and Attendant

charges: Based on the medical bills as well as the evidence

placed on record, the Tribunal has granted compensation in

a sum of Rs.45,000/- under this head. Since, the Tribunal

has taken laid up period for only one month and this Court

has treated the laid up period as 3 months, it would be

appropriate if compensation under this head to Rs.50,000/-

as against Rs.45,000/- by the Tribunal.

17. Pain and suffering: The Tribunal has granted

compensation in a sum of Rs.25,000/- under this head.

Having regard to the nature of injury sustained, period of

treatment, this is on the lower side. It would be appropriate

if an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- is granted under this

head making the compensation Rs.35,000/- as against

Rs.25,000/- granted by the Triubnal.

18. Loss of amenities of life: The Tribunal has

granted compensation in a sum of Rs.20,000/- under this

head, but described this head as loss of future happiness

and amenities. Having regard to the nature of the injury

sustained by the petitioner and the disability sustained by

him, it would be appropriate if the compensation is

increased by Rs.10,000/- under this head i.e., total sum of

Rs.30,000/- as against Rs.20,000/- granted by the

Tribunal.

19. Future medical expenses: The Tribunal has

granted compensation in a sum of Rs.20,000/- under this

head. Having regard to the nature of evidence led, the

compensation granted under this head is appropriate and

does not call for any interference.

20. Thus, in all petitioner is entitled for

compensation in a sum of Rs.2,76,300/- as against

Rs.2,36,300/- granted by the Tribunal as detailed below.

           Heads             Amount granted       Amount granted
                             by the Tribunal       by this Court
                                  In Rs.              In Rs.
   Loss of future income             1,18,800             1,26,720
   Pain and sufferings                   25,000               35,000
   Loss of income during                  7,500               24,000
   laid up period
   Medical, conveyance,                  45,000               50,000
   Nutrition         and
   Attendant charges
   Loss of amenities of                  20,000               30,000
   life
   Future         medical                20,000               20,000
   expenses
   TOTAL                               2,36,300           2,85,720

21. The Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of

8% p.a. without any basis. Therefore, the same is restricted

to 6% p.a. 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.2,85,720/-   as     against

Rs.2,36,300/- granted by the Tribunal, with

interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till

realization (minus the amount already

paid/deposited)