Shivanna vs Nagesh C
2022 Latest Caselaw 13064 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 13064 Kant
Judgement Date : 16 November, 2022

Karnataka High Court

Shivanna vs Nagesh C on 16 November, 2022

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

                 M.F.A.NO.7245/2017 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SHIVANNA,
S/O RUDRAPPA,
NOW AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT PILLAHALLI,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.                             ... APPELLANT

            (BY SRI RANGEGOWDA N.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     NAGESH C,
       S/O M. CHANDRASHEKARA SHETTY,
       AGED MAJOR,
       No.2707, BAZAR STREET,
       NELAMANGALA TOWN,
       BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 123.

2.     THE MANAGER,
       RELIANCE GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
       NO.28, 5TH FLOOR,
       CENTENARY BUILDING,
       M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
                                             ... RESPONDENTS

          (BY SRI E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
               VIDE ORDER DATED 11.03.2022,
              NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
                                  2



     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.04.2017
PASSED IN MVC NO.4959/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, & MACT, BANGALORE,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

award dated 20.04.2017, passed in M.V.C.No.4959/2016, on the

file of the XIX Additional Small Cause Judge and MACT,

Bengaluru ('the Tribunal' for short).

3. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before

the Tribunal is that the claimant met with an accident and as a

result, he had suffered the compound fracture of both bones of

lower 1/3rd of left leg and he was an inpatient for a period of

nine days.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would

vehemently contend that P.W.2 doctor was examined, who

assessed the disability of 24% to particular limb and 12% to the

whole body. The Tribunal has taken only 8% of disability and

while calculating the compensation, income of Rs.8,000/- per

month was taken. It was an accident of the year 2016 and the

notional income for the accident of the year 2016 would be

Rs.9,500/- per month. Hence, it requires interference of this

Court.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent

Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal taking note of the

material on record, rightly taken 1/3rd of the disability of 8% and

hence it does not require interference of this Court. The learned

counsel submits that the Tribunal has awarded just and

reasonable compensation.

6. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also

on perusal of the material on record, the claimant had suffered

the compound fracture of both bones of lower 1/3rd of left leg

and the compensation of Rs.40,000/- awarded under the head

pain and suffering is meager and hence the same is enhanced to

Rs.50,000/-.

7. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.24,000/-

under the head loss of income during the laid up period by

taking the monthly income of Rs.8,000/-. This Court has re-

assessed the income of Rs.9,500/- per month and when he had

sustained the compound fracture of both bones, it requires

minimum four months for uniting of fracture. Hence, an amount

of Rs.38,000/- (Rs.9,500/- x 4) is awarded under the head loss

of income during the laid up period.

8. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.70,823/-

under the head medical expenses and the same is based on

documentary evidence and hence it does not require interference

of this Court.

9. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/-

under the head attendant charges, food and conveyance and he

was an inpatient for a period of nine days and hence the same is

just and reasonable and does not require interference of this

Court.

10. The Tribunal erred in assessing the future loss of

income of Rs.84,480/-. Taking the income of Rs.9,500/- per

month as assessed by this Court and applying the relevant

multiplier of '11' as he was aged about 52 years as per Ex.R.1

ration card and taking the disability of 12%, the future loss of

income comes to Rs.1,50,480/- (Rs.9,500/- x 12 x 11 x 12%).

11. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/-

under the head loss of amenities. The claimant is aged about 52

years and he has to lead rest of his life with the disability of 12%

and hence, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.30,000/-

under the head loss of amenities.

12. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/-

under the head future medical expenses and the same is just

and reasonable and hence it does not require interference of this

Court.

13. In all, the claimant is entitled for compensation of

Rs.3,69,303/- as against Rs.2,69,303/-.

14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 20.04.2017, passed in

M.V.C.No.4959/2016, is modified granting compensation of Rs.3,69,303/- as against Rs.2,69,303/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.