Allauddin Mohmed Ramazan S/O ... vs Monsoor
2022 Latest Caselaw 12429 Kant

                            -1-




                                    MFA No. 22192 of 2011

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                          BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22192 OF 2011 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

ALLAUDDIN MOHMED RAMAZAN
S/O MOHMED RAMAZAN,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
R/O HIDAKALDAM,
HUKKERI TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT.
                                              ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. Y LAKSHMIKANT REDDY.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.    MONSOOR MOHAMMAD MULLAR,
      MAJOR,
      R/AT SAUNSUDDI GALLI, SANKESHWAR,
      HUKKERI TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT.

2.    THE MANAGER,
      THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
      COMPANY LIMITED,
      MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C V ANGADI, ADV.,FOR R2;
R1- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
                                  -2-




                                          MFA No. 22192 of 2011

      THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF M.V. ACT, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.04.2010, PASSED IN
M.V.C. NO.1496/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
FAST TRACK IV & MACT, BELGAUM, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM      PETITION     FOR    COMPENSATION     AND     SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                              JUDGMENT

The claimant in MVC No.1496/2009 on the file of the

Presiding Officer, Fast Track-IV & M.A.C.T., Belgaum (for

short "the Tribunal") is in appeal aggrieved by the judgment

and award dated 05.04.2010 awarding a sum of

Rs.1,10,000/- as compensation.

2. The short facts necessary for disposal of this

appeal are that on 27.08.2008 when the claimant was riding

motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-49/E-1287, a truck

bearing registration No.KA-04/4282 dashed against the

motorcycle and caused accident. The claimant suffered

fracture of the right humerus and was admitted as an

inpatient for 4 days. The claimant contended that he was a

businessman and was earning Rs.200 per day and that due

MFA No. 22192 of 2011

to the accident, he could not conduct his business and

therefore, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal, after assessing the oral and

documentary evidence, held that the notional income of the

claimant was Rs.3,000/- per month and assessed the

disability for the whole body @ 10% and awarded the

following compensation:

                       HEAD                         Amount
                                                    (in Rs.)
Towards pain and sufferings                         25,000/-
Towards loss of amenities and comforts in life      25,000/-
Towards medical expenses                            14,000/-
Towards special diet, conveyance and incidental     10,000/-
charges
Towards loss of income during the laid up period    9,000/-

for three months (Rs.3,000 x 3=Rs.9,000/- Towards loss of future income 27,000/- Rs.3,000 x 12 = Rs.36,000/-

50% of 36,000 = Rs.18,000/-

Rs.18,000 x 15 = 2,70,000/-

10% of 2,70,000 = Rs.27,000/-

Total 1,10,000/-

Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is

filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

the Tribunal ought to have considered the notional income of

the claimant at Rs.4,250/- per month as is done in cases

referred to Lok-Adalath for settlement. He submitted that the

MFA No. 22192 of 2011

Tribunal has wrongly deducted 50% of the income while

calculating loss of future income.

4. The learned counsel for the insurer, on the other

hand, contended that there is no evidence to establish the

income of the claimant. He contended that the claimant

claimed to be engaged in timber business and therefore, the

claimant did not suffer any loss of income. He, therefore,

prayed that the award passed by the Tribunal be left

undisturbed.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the claimant and the insurer. As rightly

submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant, this Court

has consistently held that in respect of accidents occurred in

the year 2008, the notional income can be considered at

Rs.4,250/- per month. Having regard to the age of the

claimant, this Court considers it appropriate to treat the

income of the claimant as sum of Rs.4,250/- per month.

Consequently, the compensation to which the claimant would

be entitled to deserves reconsideration as follows:

MFA No. 22192 of 2011

HEAD Amount (in Rs.) Towards pain and sufferings 25,000/-

Towards loss of amenities and comforts in life 25,000/- Towards medical expenses 14,000/-

Towards special diet, conveyance and incidental 10,000/- charges Towards loss of income during the laid up period 12,750/- for three months (Rs.4,250 x 3=Rs.12,750/-) Towards loss of future income 76,500/- Rs.4,250 x 12 (months) x 15 (multiplier) x 10% (disability) = Rs.76,500/-

Total 1,63,250/-

6. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed in

part and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified and

the compensation is enhanced to Rs.1,63,250/- as against

Rs.1,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced

compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the

date of petition till its realization however, excluding interest

for delayed period of 229 days in filing the appeal.

7. The enhanced compensation shall be deposited by

the insurance company within a period of one month from

the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

YAN