Sunil @ Sunilkumar vs Sri Allipatel And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 7787 Kant

                                 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.200877/2021 (MV)

Between:

Sunil @ Sunilkumar
S/o Babugouda Biradar
Age: 28 Years, Occ: Driver
R/o: Jumanal
Tq: & Dist: Vijayapura-586 102
                                                 ...Appellant
(By Sri Koujalagi C. Laxman, Advocate)

And:

1.      Sri Allipatel S/o Abdulpatel Shivanagi
        Age: 48 Years, Occ: Business
        R/o: Darga Jail Road
        Shakti Nagar
        Vijayapura-586 103

2.    The Legal Manager
      The Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.
      E8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrial Area
      Sitapur-Jaipur-202022 (Rajasthan State)
                                              ...Respondents
(Sri Subhash Mallapur, Advocate for R2;
R1 served)
                               2

     This MFA is filed under Section 173 (1) of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 praying to modify the judgment and award
dated 05.03.2021 passed in MVC.No.910/2017 on the file of
the Court of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal No.XII, Vijayapura at Vijayapura and
allow this appeal to grant the compensation amount by
Rs.17,93,932/- only as claimed by the Appellant before this
Court and etc.


     This MFA is coming on for Admission, this day,
SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR J., delivered the following:

                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the claimant in MVC No.910/2017

on the file of MACT-XII, Vijayapur in connection with road

traffic accident that took place on 12.08.2017 at about

5-45 hours. The appellant was sitting in the tractor and a

tanker bearing registration No.MH-04/FU-0699 being

driven rashly and negligently by its driver, dashed against

the tractor from behind and as a result, the appellant

sustained grievous injuries. The doctor who treated him

has opined that the appellant sustained compression

fracture of D12.

2. When the appellant laid application for

compensation, the Tribunal took the notional income of

the appellant as Rs.7,000/- per month and applied

multiplier 18 corresponding to his age and awarded

compensation of Rs.1,51,200/- payable towards loss of

future income. Totally, the Tribunal has awarded

compensation of Rs.2,06,068/- on all heads.

3. Sri Koujalagi C. L., learned counsel for the

appellant submits that the Tribunal has held the disability

of 10% instead of 15%. The notional income should have

been taken as Rs.10,250/- as per the chart prepared by

the State Legal Services Authority. He further submits

that the compensation given on the other heads are on the

lower side. According to him, the just compensation

payable to the appellant is Rs.4,51,968/-. But

Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for respondent

No.2 submits that the disability cannot be taken more

than 10%. Therefore, it is his argument that there is no

case for increasing the compensation on the head of loss

of future income. However, he submitted that the

compensation for laid up period has not been awarded by

the Tribunal and the same may be awarded.

4. On the day when the accident took place, the

age of the appellant was 25 years. The appellant is said to

be a driver. Injuries sustained by him is D12 compression

fracture. P.W.3, the treating doctor is of the opinion that

the appellant had difficulty in bending forward and

rotation of trunk, and he was advised to refrain from

driving. In this view, 10% disability as has been held by

the Tribunal appears to be on a lower side. As rightly

argued by Sri Koujalagi C.L., 15% disability can be taken.

The notional income to be considered is Rs.10,250/-

instead of Rs.7,000/- per month as has been held by the

Tribunal because the accident took place in the year 2017.

The appropriate multiplier is 18. The compensation

payable for functional disability comes to Rs.3,32,100/-.

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- on the head of loss

of amenities and future unhappiness. On this head, we

find the amount may be enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. For

the laid up period, the Tribunal has not awarded any

amount. Therefore, we add another some of Rs.30,750/-

for three months. We do not want to enhance the

compensation on the other heads. Thus, the total

compensation payable to the appellant works out as

follows:

       Sl. No.           Heads               Amount
      1.         Pain and suffering        Rs.10,000/-
      2.         Medical expenses          Rs.9,868/-
      3.         Loss of income due to     Rs.3,32,100/-
                 functional disability
      4.         Food                and   Rs.5,000/-
                 nourishment
      5.         Attendant charges         Rs.5,000/-
      6.         Conveyance Charges        Rs.5,000/-
      7.         Loss of amenities and     Rs.25,000/-
                 future unhappiness
      8.         Loss of income during     Rs.30,750/-
                 laid up period
                          Total            4,22,718/-

5. Therefore, we partly allow this appeal and

award total compensation of Rs.4,22,718/- as against

Rs.2,06,068/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced

compensation carries interest of 6% per annum from the

date of petition till the date of realization. The enhanced

compensation with interest as aforesaid shall be deposited

by the Insurance Company within four weeks from the

date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RSP