Karnataka High Court
Jagadeesha K.R vs The New India Assurance Company ... on 10 October, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.7134/2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
JAGADEESHA K.R.
S/O RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT KODALAGARA,
SHETTIKERE HOBLI,
C.N.HALLY TALUK. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI C.M. VENKAT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
REGD OFFICE,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE BUILDING,
87, M.G.ROAD, FORT MUMBAI - 01.
BRANCH OFFICE NEAR GAYATHRI TALKIES,
B.H. ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572 101.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
2. K.R.VENUGOPALSHETTY
S/O RAJAGOPALASHETTY K.N.,
MAJOR,
PROP. THE KADABA EXPRESS
ARUNODAYA GANDHINAGAR
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 214.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
R-2 IS SERVED)
2
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.08.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.1018/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE & 19TH MACT, ITINERATE COURT,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though this matter is listed for admission today, with the
consent of both the learned counsel it is taken up for final
disposal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for respondent No.1.
3. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and
award dated 26.08.2016, passed in M.V.C.No.1018/2014, on the
file of the Senior Civil Judge and 19th MACT, Itinerate Court,
Chikkanayakanahalli ('the Tribunal' for short).
4. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before
the Tribunal is that he met with an accident on 30.08.2013 and
due to the said impact, he has suffered fracture of both the
bones of right leg and in support of his claim he examined the
doctor as P.W.2, who assessed the disability of 30% to the
particular limb and 10% to the whole body. The Tribunal
accepted the same and quantified the compensation.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the Tribunal has taken the income of Rs.4,500/-
per month in a case of accident of the year 2013 and ought to
have taken the notional income of Rs.8,000/- per month. The
learned counsel submits that the compensation has not been
awarded under the head loss of income during the laid up period
and the compensation awarded under the head pain and
suffering is very less and under food and conveyance only
Rs.10,000/- is awarded and no compensation is awarded under
the head loss of amenities.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1
submits that the Tribunal has taken the income of Rs.4,500/- per
month in the absence of any documentary evidence and awarded
just and reasonable compensation under all the heads. The
Tribunal also considered 10% disability i.e., 1/3rd and hence
does not require interference of this Court.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and also on perusal
of the material available on record, the claimant has suffered
fracture of both the bones of right leg and the doctor assessed
30% disability to particular limb and 10% to the whole body and
the same is accepted and hence it does not require any
interference of this Court.
8. However, taking note of the fact that the accident is
of the year 2013, in the absence of any documentary evidence
with regard to his income, the notional income of Rs.8,000/-
should be taken. The Tribunal committed an error in taking the
income of Rs.4,500/- per month. The claimant is aged about 31
years and the relevant multiplier applicable is '16' and having
taken Rs.8,000/- as his income, the loss of future income comes
to Rs.1,53,600/- (Rs.8,000/- x 12 x 16 x 10%).
9. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,01,311/-
under the head medical expenses based on the documentary
evidence and hence it does not require any interference.
10. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation
under the head loss of income during laid up period. When both
the bones are fractured, it requires minimum four months for
uniting of fracture and for rest. Having taken the income of
Rs.8,000/- per month and laid up period as four months, the loss
of income during the laid up period comes to Rs.32,000/-
(Rs.8,000/- x 4).
11. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the
head loss of amenities and the claimant is aged about 31 years
and he has to lead rest of his life with 10% disability. Hence, it
is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.25,000/- under the
head loss of amenities.
12. The claimant was an inpatient for a period of 32 days
and the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.10,000/- under
the head food, nourishment and attendant charges. It was an
accident of the year 2013 and he was an inpatient for a period of
32 days in terms of the document Ex.P.6 and hence it is
appropriate to award an amount of Rs.25,000/- as against
Rs.10,000/- under the head food, nourishment and attendant
charges.
13. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/-
under the head pain and suffering. Having considered compound
fracture of both bones of right leg, it is appropriate to award an
amount of Rs.40,000/- under head pain and suffering.
14. In all, the claimant is entitled for an amount of
Rs.3,76,911/- as against Rs.2,22,711/-
15. 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 26.08.2016, passed in
M.V.C.No.1018/2014, is modified granting
compensation of Rs.3,76,911/- as against
Rs.2,22,711/- with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till deposit.
(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the
compensation amount with interest within six
weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
