Karnataka High Court
Abhishek S/O Shivaputra vs Revanasidda And Ors on 31 May, 2022
Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar, S Rachaiah
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.200867/2021(MV)
Between:
Abhishek S/o Shivaputra
Age: 26 Years, Occ: Coolie/Driver
R/o: Kadboor, Tq. & Dist: Kalaburagi
...Appellant
(By Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, Advocate)
And:
1. Revanasidda S/o Shrimanth
Age: 30 Years, Occ: Driver
R/o: Kadboor,
Tq.& Dist: Kalaburagi-585 102
2. Ravishankar S/o Somashekhar
Age: 33 Years, Occ: Business
R/o: Bharatnoor, Tq: Chittapur
Dist: Kalaburagi-585 102
3. General Manager, IFCO TOKIO
General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Sudev Plaza, 3rd Floor
2
Dajiban Peth, Hubli-580 029
...Respondents
(By Sri Subhash Mallapur, Advocate for R3;
V/o dated 28.09.2021 notice to R1 & R2 dispensed with)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the MV Act,
praying to allow this appeal and enhance the compensation to
Rs.16,16,500/- (excluding the amount awarded by the Tribunal)
along with interest by modifying the judgment and award of the
II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi, dated
03.12.2019, in MVC No.259 of 2018.
This MFA is coming on for admission this day,
S. RACHAIAH J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the claimant being not satisfied
the judgment and award dated 03.12.2019 in MVC No.
259/2018 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge &
MACT, Kalaburagi (for short, the 'Tribunal') seeking
enhancement of compensation.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. On 11.08.2017 at about 4.00 a.m. near
Malagatti village, on Shahabad-Wadi road, on request of
the respondent No.1, the appellant was traveling in Jeep
bearing No.KA-32/M-8420. At that time the driver of the
said vehicle drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner, due to which the Jeep turned turtle. As a result,
the appellant sustained grievous injury and fracture.
Immediately, he was shifted to hospital and spent
Rs.5,00,000/- towards his treatment. Case was registered
in Shahabad Town P.S. in Crime No.147/2017 against the
driver of the offending vehicle.
3. The claimant filed petition under Section 166 of
the Act seeking compensation of Rs.24,00,000/- on the
ground that prior to the accident the appellant was hale
and healthy and earning Rs.12,000/- per month as a
driver. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the
appellant lost the income. Hence, he sought for awarding
compensation.
4. On service of notice, respondent No.2
remained absent. Respondent No.1 appeared, but did not
file written statement. Respondent No.3 being the
insurance company filed written statement denying the
claim petition as false and contended that there was delay
in filing the FIR; the driver of offending vehicle did not hold
driving licence as on the date of accident and thus there
was violation of policy conditions, and prayed for dismissal
of the petition.
5. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and
perusing the materials placed before it, awarded
compensation of Rs.7,83,500/- with interest @ 6% a.m.
from the date of petition till realization. Being not
satisfied by the same, the appellant is before this court
seeking for enhancement of the compensation.
6. Heard Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, learned
counsel for the appellant and Sri Subhash Mallapur for
respondent No.3. Notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2
dispensed with.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the appellant was working as driver of the tractor having
valid driving licence to drive the vehicle and he was
earning Rs.12,000/-p.m., but, the tribunal has taken
Rs.9000/- per month which is against to the assured
income of the appellant, accordingly the appellant has
sought to enhance the compensation.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
No.3 contended that as the tribunal taking into
consideration the overall income of the appellant, has
rightly passed the award and he supported the impugned
judgment and award and sought to dismiss the appeal.
9. The tribunal while passing the award, has
meticulously assessed the income of the appellant. As per
the contentions of the appellant, he was earning
Rs.12000/- per month. However, he has failed to produce
any documents to show his income. Since, he failed to
produce any documents, the tribunal has rightly
considered the notional income by taking into
consideration the chart prepared by the KALSA for the
purpose of determining the notional income. It is needless
to state that in the absence of any material evidence, the
notional income as per the chart prepared by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authorities may be
followed. In the present case, the accident is of the year
2017. As per the chart, the monthly income of the
appellant to be taken is Rs.10,250/- for computing the
compensation. But, the Tribunal has wrongly taken the
income of the appellant as Rs.9,000/- per month. The
appellant has not led any evidence to show that due to the
accident, he is unable to carry on his regular work and that
he has suffered any loss in his earnings. The disability of
the appellant taken by Tribunal at 25% is correct.
Therefore, if the monthly income of the appellant is taken
at Rs.10,250/- and if 18 multiplier is applied, the claimant
would be entitled for loss of future earning at
Rs.5,53,500/- (Rs.10,250/- x 12 x 25%x 18) as against
Rs.4,86,000/-, awarded by the Tribunal. On the other
conventional heads compensation awarded by the tribunal
appears to be just and proper, and no enhancement is
required. The total compensation payable comes to
Rs.8,51,000/-.
10. In view of the above discussions, the appeal
deserves to be allowed in part. Accordingly, the appeal is
allowed in part.
11. The appellant is entitled for total compensation
of Rs.8,51,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
12. The respondent No.3 - insurance company
shall deposit the enhanced compensation with interest as
aforesaid, within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
BL
