Sri Jagadeesha vs Sri D. Nagaraju
2022 Latest Caselaw 13240 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 13240 Kant
Judgement Date : 23 November, 2022

Karnataka High Court

Sri Jagadeesha vs Sri D. Nagaraju on 23 November, 2022

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                         BEFORE

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

                M.F.A.NO.8150/2014 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SRI JAGADEESHA
S/O. CHIKKAHYDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/O. HAROHALLY
PANDAVAPURA TOWN
PANDAVAPURA TALUK-572 101.                      ...APPELLANT

              (BY SRI SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SRI D. NAGARAJU
       S/O. DEVARABHAT
       AGE: MAJOR
       DOOR NO. 134, 5TH CROSS
       1ST MAIN, II STAGE
       TELECOM LAYOUT, BOGADI
       MYSURU-570 026.

2.     THE MANAGER
       ICICI LAMBARD MOTOR
       INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
       1ST MAIN, SARASWATHIPURAM
       MYSURU-570 020.                    ... RESPONDENTS

       (BY SRI RAMESH P. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
       SRI H.N.KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                                 2



     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.08.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.52/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, PANDAVAPURA, 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 learned

counsel for the respondents.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award

dated 05.08.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.52/2010 on the file of the

Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at Pandavapura ('the Tribunal' for

short) questioning the quantum of compensation.

2. The parties are referred to as per their original

rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the

convenience of the Court.

3. Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of the material available on record, considering the

nature of injuriy i.e., crush injury, the Tribunal awarded

Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- towards

food, diet, nourishment, conveyance and other incidental

expenses and the same does not require any interference.

4. However, the Tribunal committed an error in taking

the income at Rs.4,500/- per month for a period of three months

and awarding a compensation of Rs.13,500/-. The claimant was

inpatient for a period of 8 days and he was subjected to

treatment. It was the accident of the year 2010 and the notional

income would be Rs.5,500/- per month. Hence, taking the

income at Rs.5,500/- per month for a period of four months, a

sum of Rs.22,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during

laid up period.

5. The Tribunal also, while calculating the future loss of

income, considering the disability at 16%, awarded a sum of

Rs.1,55,520/- and this Court does not find any ground to

enhance the disability and the same is just and reasonable.

However, the Tribunal committed an error in taking the income

at Rs.4,500/- and the notional income would be Rs.5,500/- per

month. Hence, taking the income at Rs.5,500/- per month, the

disability at 16% and the relevant multiplier of '18', a sum of

Rs.1,90,080/- (5,500 x 12 x 18 x 16/100) is awarded towards

future loss of income.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit

that no future medical expense is awarded. On perusal of the

material on record, no material is found that the claimant is in

need of surgery and hence, the question of awarding

compensation on the head of future medical expenses does not

arise.

7. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- on

the head of disappointment and discomfort and loss of

amenities. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the

claimant, the same does not require any interference.

8. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.26,513/- towards

medical expenses based on the documentary evidence and the

same does not require any interference of this Court. Hence, in

all, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,43,593/- as

against Rs.3,00,533/- awarded by the Tribunal.

9. 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     05.08.2014      passed         in
              M.V.C.No.52/2010          is   modified        granting
              compensation     of   Rs.3,43,593/-       as    against