Karnataka High Court
Smt. Jyothi, W/O Papanayaka vs P. Kubendra, S/O Kallappaiah on 28 March, 2022
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
M.F.A. NO. 103109 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SMT. JYOTHI, W/O PAPANAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: JANNENAHALLI KAPILE,
NEAR ABHISHEK SALVENTI CHALLAKERE TOWN,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
NOW R/O: KANEKAL BUS STAND,
ANDRAL ROAD, BALLARI.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. P. KUBENDRA, S/O KALLAPPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE LORRY
BEARING REG NO. KA-16/B-8540,
R/O: HOSACHURI-PAPAIAHHATTI,
CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
2. VIJAYENDRA M.B. S/O. BHADRANNA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OWNER OF THE LORRY
BEARING REG. NO. KA-16/B-8540,
J R/O: MANNEKOTE, CHALLAKERE TALUK,
MAMATHA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
Digitally signed by J
MAMATHA 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
Location: Dharwad
Date: 2022.03.30 M/S. UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
11:38:47 +0530
LIMITED, 2A, 2ND FLOOR, R/O: COMAPLEX,
P.B. ROAD, HOSUR, HUBBALLI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C.KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 & R2 DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
MFA No. 103109 of 2017
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V.
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.01.2017,
PASSÉ DIN MVC NO.500/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER
MACT-II, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. Being dissatisfied with the compensation of
Rs.3,31,220/- awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant
is in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The case of the claimant was that while she
and her mother were walking by the road, the lorry
bearing registration No. KA-16/B-8540 collided with
them resulting in serious injuries.
3. It was the case of the claimant that she
had sustained a traumatic brain injury and the said
injury was grievous in nature. The Tribunal refused
to grant any compensation on account of the loss of
future earning capacity, since the claimant did not
examine any doctor to establish the percentage of
disability.
MFA No. 103109 of 2017
4. This Court by order dated 18.01.2022,
directed the claimant to be subjected the medical
examination by the District Medical Board, Ballari
after recording the submission of the learned counsel
that it would not be necessary to remand the matter
and reference of the Medical Board would meet the
ends of justice. Pursuant to the said order, the
claimant had subjected herself for medical
examination and the Medical Board comprising of five
Doctors has submitted the medical report, dated
26.02.2022/08.03.2022, it reads as follows:
"This patient Mrs. M. Jyothi sustained head
injury (Dec 25, 2013). Her clinical
evaluation and MRI suggest evidence of
head injury. Comprehensiv e clinical
examination reveals the weakness of left
side of body stiffness. Based on above
findings and as per guidelines and gazette
notification (UOI), the assessment for
disability is cond ucted. I am of the opinion
that this mentioned patient having 25%
(twenty five) disability."
MFA No. 103109 of 2017
5. In view of the above, it cannot be in
dispute that the claimant, as a result of head injury
suffered by her is suffering from of the left side of
the body and stiffness and the Doctor has opined
that she has suffered 25% disability. I find no reason
to disregard this report. The learned counsel for the
Insurer contends that they have a right to object to
the manner of assessment.
6. In my view, since the Medical Board
comprising of four Head of Departments and the
Chairman of VIMS, Ballari, have come to the
conclusion that the claimant has suffered 25%
disability, there would be no need to subject these
eminent Doctors for cross-examination. It is to be
noted here that the matter was referred to the
Medical Board as it was agreed by all the parties that
a medical examination would suffice and there would
be no need to remand the matter.
MFA No. 103109 of 2017
7. I therefore, refuse to entertain the
argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
Insurer.
8. The accident is of the year 2013, since
there was no documentary evidence to establish the
income of the injured, the monthly income as
determined by the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority, which is for the year 2013 a sum of
Rs.7,000/- per month is adopted.
9. The claimant being 25 years, the
appropriate multiplier of 18 will have to be adopted
to calculate the compensation towards loss of future
income. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to a
sum of Rs.3,78,000/- (Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 18 x 25%)
towards loss of future income.
10. The compensation of Rs.1,65,220/-
awarded by the Tribunal in respect of the medical
expenses being based on the documentary evidence,
hence, the same is maintained.
MFA No. 103109 of 2017
11. The compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal towards pain and agony, in my view
this sum is required to be enhanced to Rs.75,000/-.
12. The compensation of R s.10,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal towards unhappiness and loss of
amenities is on the lower side, having regard to the
fact that the claimant has suffered 25% permanent
disability, it would be appropriate to award a sum of
Rs.50,000/- towards unhappiness and loss of
amenities.
13. Since the income of the injured claimant is
held at Rs.7,000/- p.m., at least the income of two
months is to be reckoned to determine the loss of
income during the period of treatment. Thus, the
claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.14,000/-
towards loss of income during the period of
treatment.
14. The compensation of Rs.3,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal towards nursing, attendant and extra
MFA No. 103109 of 2017
nourishment charges is on the lower side, the same
is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-.
15. The compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of future
prospects is however in correct and amount awarded
under the said head is disallowed.
16. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to a
total compensation as follows:
1. Loss of future income Rs.3,78,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.1,65,220/-
3. Pain and agony Rs.75,000/-
4. Unhappiness and loss of Rs.50,000/-
amenities
5. loss of income during the Rs.14,000/-
period of treatment
6. Nursing, attendant and Rs.20,000/-
extra nourishment charges
TOTAL Rs.7,02,220/-
7. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the
appellant-claimant is allowed in part. The appellant is
entitled to a total compensation of Rs.7,02,220/-
instead of Rs.3,31,220/- awarded by the Tribunal
along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the
date of petition till its realization.
MFA No. 103109 of 2017
8. The respondent - Insurance C ompany is
directed to deposit entire compensation amount
along with interest before the Tribunal within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this judgment for disbursement to
the claimant. .
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vnp*
