Karnataka High Court
Iranna S/O Narasappa Bajja vs M/S Super Construction Company And Anr on 7 December, 2023
Author: M.G.S.Kamal
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9071
MFA No. 201433 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201433 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
IRANNA
S/O NARASAPPA BAJJA,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, COOLIE,
R/O ADKI VILLAGE,
TQ. SEDAM,
PRESENTLY R/O C/O SHARANAPPA YADAV,
JANGE BROTHERS,
BRAHMPUR,
KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by LUCYGRACE AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. M/S SUPER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
KARNATAKA THROUGH ITS PROP.,
ABDUL MOIN
S/O ABDUL SATTAR,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O L.N. NAGAR,
V.C. SEDAM,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585102.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BILGUNDI MANSION,
OPP: MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9071
MFA No. 201433 of 2019
KALABURAGI-585102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BABU H. METAGUDDA ,ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION TO RS.10,00,000/-
(EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL)
ALONG WITH INTEREST BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MACT, KALABURAGI DATED 28.02.2019 IN MVC NO.683/2015.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant being
aggrieved by the Order dated 28.02.2019 passed in
M.V.C.No.683/2015 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil
Judge and MCAT, Kalburgi (hereinafter referred to as the
'Tribunal' for short) by which the Tribunal while partly
allowing the claim petition has granted compensation in a
sum of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the
date of petition till realization and has directed respondent
-Insurance Company to pay the said amount.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9071
2. The accident dated 24.10.2014 involving two motor
cycles resulting in injuries to the claimant is not in dispute.
The claimant appears to have sustained fractures on lower
end of left fibula, metatarsal bones and other grievous
injuries on left foot, chest and other parts of the body.
The claimant was treated as inpatient from 25.10.2014 to
28.10.2014. The claimant made an application under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking
compensation of Rs.11,66,000/- on the premise that the
claimant was earning Rs.12,000/- p.m., from her
agricultural coolie work and due to the accident the
claimant has suffered permanent disability, unable to carry
out her daily activities. On appreciation of the evidence,
the Tribunal has concluded that the accident in question
had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of
the offending motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-32-
W-1658 which is insured with the respondent-Insurance
company and consequently held that the claimant is
entitled for aforesaid compensation.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9071
3. Being aggrieved by the same claimant is before
this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.
4. Sri. Harshavardhan R Malipatil, learned Counsel
for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the
memorandum of appeal submits that claimant was
examined by Dr.Ramakant Kulkarni, Orthopedic Surgeon-
PW.2 who has opined that the claimant has sustained 20%
to 25% disability to overall body. He submits that the
tribunal however without proper appreciation the said
evidence has assessed the disability at 8%, which is
grossly inadequate. He further submits that the accident is
of the year 2014 and the Tribunal has taken the notational
income of the appellant at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is
on the lower side. He also submits that the Tribunal has
awarded meager amount of compensation towards other
heads which also requires enhancement. Hence, seeks for
allowing of the appeal.
5. Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 - Insurance Company apart from
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9071
justifying the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal
submits that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the
material evidence produced by the claimant and came to a
conclusion by awarding just compensation, warranting no
interference in the matter. He further submits that the
amount of compensation on other heads is also just and
proper. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
7. Though it is contended that the petitioner has
sustained the disability of 20% to 25% based on the
evidence given by the Pw-2 as pointed by learned counsel
for the respondent-Insurance company, Pw-2 is not a
treated doctor. However, that alone cannot be a ground
to hold that the claimant has not sustained any disability
at all.
8. The tribunal has taken into consideration the
wound certificate, disability certificate and also the X-ray
produced by the claimant with regard to the nature of
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9071
injuries namely fractures on lower end of left fibula,
metatarsal bones and other grievous injuries on left foot
and chest and other parts of the body and has come to the
conclusion that the claimant has suffered disability of 8%.
Considering the nature of the injuries and the extent of
disability seen in wound certificate and disability
certificate, this Court is of the considered view that the
disability can be assessed at 10% instead of 8% as held
by the Tribunal.
9. The claimant claims to have been carrying on
agricultural coolie work. No documents have been
produced with regard to the income of the claimant. In
the absence of any evidence, taking into consideration the
guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority for the purposes of determination of notional
income, since the accident is of the year 2014, the
notional income of the claimant is assessed at Rs.7,500/-
per month instead of Rs.6,000/- per month. Since the age
of the claimant was 45 years at the time of accident,
multiplier of 14 is applied. Calculated as above i.e.,
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9071
Rs.7,500 x 12 x 14 x 10%, the claimant would be entitled
for a sum of Rs.1,26,000/- towards loss of future income.
10. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/-
towards pain and suffering. This Court is of considered
view that an addition of Rs.10,000/- be made making it
Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering.
11. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-
towards medical expenses. The same is maintained as it
is.
12. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,200/-
under the heads of medical attendant, food and extra
nourishment. The same is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-.
13. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-
towards conveyance. The same is enhanced to
Rs.10,000/- by adding Rs.5,000/-.
14. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by
claimant, he might have been advised rest for about three
months. Therefore, loss of income during the period of
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9071
treatment is to be Rs.22,500/- (Rs.7,500 x 3) instead of
Rs.18,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-
towards deprivation of future amenities. The same is
enhanced to Rs.20,000/- by adding Rs.10,000/-.
16. Thus, the claimant is held entitled for a total
compensation of Rs.2,48,500/- instead of Rs.1,60,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal as under:
Sl. Heads By By
No. Tribunal this Court
1 Loss of future Rs.80,640/- Rs.1,26,000/-
earning
2 Towards pain and Rs.40,000/- Rs.50,000/-
suffering
3 Toward loss of Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/-
amenities
4 Towards attendant, Rs.1,200/- Rs.10,000/-
nourishment.
5 Loss of income Rs.18,000/- Rs.22,500/-
during period of
treatment
6. Towards medical Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/-
expenses
7. Towards Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/-
Conveyance
Total Rs.1,60,000/- Rs.2,48,500/-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9071
17. For the foregoing reasons, following:
ORDER
a) The appeal is partly allowed.
b) The appellant/claimant is held entitled for a
total compensation of Rs.2,48,500/- instead of
Rs.1,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of
claim petition till realization.
c) Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall
pay the aforesaid compensation amount within
a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this judgment.
d) The award of the Tribunal is modified
accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RL
