Karnataka High Court
Sridhara Hegde vs Pavankumar on 6 January, 2023
Bench: M.I.Arun
-1-
MFA No. 4430 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4430 OF 2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. SRIDHARA HEGDE
S/O NAGESH HEGDE,
AGEDA BOUT 31 YEARS,
OCCUPATIN MANAGER IN
PRIVATE TEMPLE,
R/O BRAMANA KALASE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
SAGAR TALUK 577401,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MAHABALESHWARA RAO K N, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by V
MANJUSHA BAI AND:
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 1. PAVANKUMAR
S/O SHIVAKUMAR,
AGED AOBUT 24 YEARS,
DRIVER OF OMNI VEHICLE,
BEARING REGN. NO.KA 09/N 8473,
R/O HALLIKER EVILLAGE,
NEAR BARANDOOR,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK 577301,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
2. SMT MANJULA
W/O SHIVAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O HALLIKERE VILLAGE,
NEAR BARANDOOR,
-2-
MFA No. 4430 of 2020
BHADRAVATHI TALUK 577301,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
J.C.ROAD, SAGAR TOWN,
SAGAR-577401,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.KRISHNAKISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
VIDE ORDER DATED 10.10.2022 NOTICE TO R1
AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.03.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO.689/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, SHIVAMOGGA,
SITTING AT SAGAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
21.03.2020 passed in MVC No.689/2018 by the Court of V
Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Addl. MACT
Shivamogga sitting at Sagar (for short 'the Tribunal'), the
petitioner therein has preferred this appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to herein as per their status before the Tribunal.
MFA No. 4430 of 2020
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 16.12.2017 petitioner was traveling on a motor
cycle and at Kagehalla water tank at Sagar-Avinahalli road
the said motor cycle met with an accident with Maruti Omini
car bearing registration No.KA.09/N-8473 which was driven
in a rash and negligent manner and duly insured with
respondent No.3. Petitioner sustained communited fracture
of right shoulder and right foot heel avulsion injury and had
to undergo surgery. Hence he filed MVC No.689/2018 and
the Tribunal based on the evidence let in, has awarded a
compensation of Rs.4,91,000/- along with interest @ 6%
p.a. under the following heads:-
1. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
Loss of income during treatment
2. Rs.40,000/-
period
3. Medical expenses Rs.1,75,000/-
4. Loss of future earning Rs.1,36,000/-
5. Loss of future amenities Rs.20,000/-
6. Attendant charges Rs.10,000/-
7. Conveyance Rs.20,000/-
8. Nourishment and diet Rs.10,000/-
9. Future medical expenses Rs.30,000/-
Total Rs.4,91,000/-
MFA No. 4430 of 2020
Not satisfied by the same, the petitioner has preferred
this appeal.
4. The accident occurred in the year 2017. The
petitioner has failed to establish his income before the
Tribunal. Hence, the notional income as prescribed in the
Lok-Adalath chart has to be considered as his income which
will be Rs.11,000/- per month.
5. The petitioner was aged 28 years at the time of
accident. Hence, the multiplier of 17 has to be adopted as
per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla
Verma vs. D.T.C [2009(6) SCC 121]. Though there is
disability of 40% to the right lower limb, the Tribunal has
taken 10% as the total body disability taking into
consideration the functional disability to the body given the
nature of employment of the petitioner which is that of a
manager in a temple. I do not find any reason to disagree
with the Tribunal in this regard. Thus towards loss of 'future
income', the petitioner would be entitled to a sum of
Rs.2,24,400/- (Rs.11,000/- X 12 X 17 X 10%) as against
MFA No. 4430 of 2020
Rs.1,36,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Similarly, given
nature of injuries, laid up period has to be considered as six
months and thus, towards 'loss of earning during laid up
period' the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.66,000/-
(Rs.11,000/- X 6) as against Rs.40,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal under the head loss of income during treatment
period. Towards 'Pain and suffering' a sum of Rs.50,000/- is
awarded. In my opinion, given the nature of injuries
Rs.60,000/- would be appropriate under the said head.
Towards 'medical expenses' a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- is
awarded. I deem it appropriate. Towards 'loss of future
amenities', a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded. Given the
nature of injuries I deem it appropriate to award
Rs.40,000/- under the said head. Towards 'attendant
charges, conveyance and nourishment and diet' sum of
Rs.10,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively is
awarded. I deem it appropriate. Towards 'future medical
expenses' a sum of Rs.30,000/- has been awarded. I deem
MFA No. 4430 of 2020
it appropriate to award Rs.50,000/- under the said head
given nature of injuries.
Thus, the compensation to the petitioner under
different heads is modified as hereunder:-
1. Pain and suffering Rs.60,000/-
Loss of income during laid up
2. Rs.66,000/-
period
3. Medical expenses Rs.1,75,000/-
4. Loss of future income Rs.2,24,400/-
5. Loss of future amenities Rs.40,000/-
6. Attendant charges Rs.10,000/-
7. Conveyance Rs.20,000/-
8. Nourishment and diet Rs.10,000/-
9. Future medical expenses Rs.50,000/-
Total Rs.6,55,400/-
Thus, the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of
Rs.6,55,400/- as against the compensation of
Rs.4,91,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
6. Hence, the following:
MFA No. 4430 of 2020
ORDER
i) The appeal is partly allowed;
ii) Respondent No.3-insurance company is liable to
pay the enhanced compensationof Rs.1,64,400/-
(Rs.6,55,400/- - Rs.4,91,000/-) to the petitioner
along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from
the date of petition till realization within a period
of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order;
iii) Draw modified award accordingly;
iv) Registry to return the records to the jurisdictional
Tribunal forthwith.
SD/-
JUDGE
PGG
