Yadagiri vs The Depot Manager
2022 Latest Caselaw 12124 Kant

                             -1-




                                        MFA No. 22763 of 2013




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
                          BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                          BEFORE
        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22763 OF 2013
                          (MV-I)
BETWEEN:

1.    SRI.YADAGIRI
      S/O MALLAPPA @ MUTTAPPA NANDESHWAR,
      AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE
      SERVICE and AGRICULTURE (NOW NIL)
      R/O: KAGAJI GALLI, BIJAPUR ROAD,
      ATHANI, TALUK: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM
                                                  ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SRINAND A PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE
 AND SRI.RAJENDRA R PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.    THE DEPOT MANAGER
      NWKRTC, ATHANI DEPOT,
      ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM.
2.    THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
      NWKRTC DIVISION OFFICE CHIKODI,
      TALUK: CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM.
                                               ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C R MENSINKAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.10.2012 PASSED
IN MVC No.1889/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACK COURT, ATHANI, PATLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
                                -2-




                                            MFA No. 22763 of 2013

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


                         JUDGMENT

Though this appeal is listed for admission today, with

the consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final

disposal.

2. Factual matrix of the case of the claimant

before the Tribunal is that claimant met with an accident

while he was proceeding in a motorcycle and driver of bus

bearing Reg.No.KA-23/F-473 came in a rash and negligent

manner and dashed against him, as a result he had

sustained grievous injuries i.e. closed head injury,

compound comminuted fracture of L3 femur right side and

to that effect disability certificate is produced before the

Tribunal and doctor has assessed the disability at 30% in

respect of right lower limb.

3. The Tribunal after considering both the oral and

documentary evidence on record, awarded compensation

of Rs.2,15,000/- and no compensation is awarded on the

MFA No. 22763 of 2013

head of future loss of income since the doctor has not

been examined except marking of disability certificate

which is marked as E.P.30 and also it is the contention

that he was inpatient for 28 days and subjected to surgery

twice and discharge card is also produced before the

Tribunal as per Exs.P.27 and P.29. The counsel also

submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

very meager and requires enhancement.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent

submits that no doctor has been examined and hence

question of assessing disability does not arise and Ex.P.30-

disability certificate is produced, which has not been

proved by examining the doctor. Hence, no grounds are

made out to enhance the compensation.

5. Having heard the respective counsel and also

on perusal of the material available on record, the

Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.40,000/- on

the head of pain and suffering and the same does not

require any interference since the accident is of the year

MFA No. 22763 of 2013

2011. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.90,000/-

towards medical expenses and since the same is based on

documentary evidence, it does not require any

interference.

6. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/-

towards future medical expenses and hence the same is

retained. However, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-

towards loss of income during period of treatment and he

was inpatient for 28 days twice in terms of Exs.P.27 and

P.29 discharge cards. The Tribunal failed to take note of

the said factor and also suffered fracture of right femur

and head injury and in order to unite the fracture

minimum 3-4 months are required and this is an accident

of the year 2011 and notional income would be Rs.6,000/-

in the absence of documentary evidence. Hence, for a

period of four months, the compensation would be

Rs.24,000/- (Rs.6,000 x 4).

7. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards

loss of amenities and he was aged 45 years and he has to

MFA No. 22763 of 2013

lead his rest of life with disability and having taken note of

fracture suffered by him and doctor assessed disability in

terms of Ex.P.30 at 30% to lower limb, it is appropriate to

take disability at 10% and hence, awarded Rs.30,000/-

towards loss of amenities and Rs.40,000/- is on higher

side.

8. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation

towards loss of future income and hence, the same is

assessed by taking income at Rs.6,000/- per month and

adopting multiplier of 14 considering the age of the

claimant as 45 and taking disability at 10%. Then, it

comes to Rs.1,00,800/-.

Rs.6,000 x 12 x 14 x 10% = Rs.1,00,800/-.

9. In all, the claimant is entitled for

Rs.3,09,800/-. In view of the discussions made above, I

pass the following:

ORDER

Appeal is allowed in part.

MFA No. 22763 of 2013

In modification of the impugned judgment and award

passed by the Tribunal, the claimant is entitled for a sum

of Rs.3,09,800/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date

of petition till realization as against Rs.2,15,000/- awarded

by the Tribunal.

The compensation amount along with interest is

ordered to be paid/deposited within six weeks from the

date of this order.

Apportionment and deposit of the compensation

amount would be as per the award of the Tribunal.

The registry is directed to transmit the trial court

records forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SH