Karnataka High Court
Athik Pasha vs Puttaswamy @ Puttaraju on 10 January, 2023
Bench: T G Gowda
MFA.1126/2016
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA No. 1126 OF 2016 (MV)
BETWEEN:
ATHIK PASHA
S/O ANWAR PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/O MUTTON MARKET ROAD,
ARSIKERE TOWN - 573 103,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.LOKESH KUMAR, K.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PUTTASWAMY @ PUTTARAJU,
S/O REVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O GAVENAHALLI,
BUVANAHALLI CROSS,
HASSAN TOWN - 573 102.
2. S.L.KIRAN,
S/O S.L.GOPAL,
MAJOR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/O BEHIND MATHRUSHREE HOSPITAL,
DASARAKOPPALU, HASSAN - 573 102.
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SRI.MANJUNATHESHWARA COMPLEX,
MFA.1126/2016
-2-
BUS STAND ROAD,
HASSAN - 573 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.GEETHA RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI.CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
V/O DATED 03.11.2022 NOTICE TO
R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1806/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, ARSIKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
25.11.2022 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the petitioner/claimant has
challenged the judgment dated 02.11.2015 passed in
M.V.C.No.1806/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge
and M.A.C.T., Arsikere (hereinafter referred to as
'Tribunal' for short).
2. The petitioner was the appellant,
respondents were the respondents before the
Tribunal. The parties will be referred with respect to
MFA.1126/2016
their status before the Tribunal for the sake of
convenience.
3. Briefly stated, the facts are that, petitioner
met with an accident in the lorry bearing
No.KA.51/3235 while traveling as its writer on
10.12.2011 at about 9.00 p.m., near
G.Shankaranahalli Koppalu on Arasikere-Huliyar Road.
The lorry dashed against the road side tree causing
injuries to the petitioner, taken treatment at
J.C.Hospital, Arasikere and at Mangala Hospital,
Hassan. He has approached the Tribunal for grant of
compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs.4,95,000/-
with interest at 8% p.a. Pleading inadequacy of
compensation the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Heard the arguments of Sri.Lokesh Kumar
K.S., learned counsel for appellant and Sri.Chethan B.,
MFA.1126/2016
learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Smt.Geetha
Raj, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
5. According to learned counsel for the
petitioner, the petitioner has suffered more than nine
injuries including fractures of left femur, commuted
fractures of right tibia and fibula, right leg exposing
the bone with tendon injury, facial muscle injury with
bone exposed, deep laceration on left ear and
fracture/dislocation of left shoulder and was under
hospitalization for 15 days and suffered more than
30% disability to whole body. In the year 2011, the
income of a person shall not be less than Rs.7,000/-
and the Tribunal has taken Rs.4,000/- without adding
future prospects. The petitioner has to undergo future
treatment at an estimated cost of Rs.80,000/-. The
Tribunal has ignored all these aspects, sought for re-
assessment and enhancement.
MFA.1126/2016
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
No.3/insurer contended that considering the gravity of
injuries, Tribunal has rightly assessed the disability to
the extent of 30% and there is no need for
enhancement. In the year 2011, petitioner was aged
20 years with no proof of income, income of
Rs.4,000/- needs nominal enhancement on par with
consideration taken at Lok Adalat. She has fairly
admitted that the nominal enhancement may be
made, but not exceeding 10% of the total
compensation. Similar arguments canvassed on behalf
of respondent No.2 also.
7. I gave my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on behalf of the parties and
perused the records.
8. There is no dispute as to the accident,
cause of the accident, injuries sustained by the
MFA.1126/2016
petitioner, treatment taken and his entitlement to
claim the compensation. As seen from the medical
records, the Tribunal has noted nine injuries sustained
by the petitioner at paragraph No.12 of the impugned
judgment. The Tribunal has accepted the medical
evidence that the petitioner has sustained whole body
disability of 30%.
9. The bills pertaining to treatment are on
record for a sum of Rs.1,18,306/-, which was
considered by the Tribunal. As regarding the income,
Tribunal has taken it at lower side, it has to be
assessed at Rs.6,500/- for calculation of loss of
income due to disability. By applying the principles
laid down in National Insurance Company Limited
vs. Pranay Sethi and Others - 2017 ACJ 680,
future prospects should be taken as 40% for age
below 40 years as the petitioner is aged 20 years.
The multiplier as per decision of Apex Court in the
MFA.1126/2016
case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation - (2009)6 SCC 121, is '18'. Then loss
of income due to disability will come to
Rs.6,500+Rs.2,600/-(40%)=Rs.9100 x 12 x 18 x 30%
= Rs.5,89,680/-. Having regard to the gravity of the
injuries, the petitioner underwent such an agony and
discomforts, he has to be adequately compensated.
Hence, towards pain and sufferings, a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/-, towards loss of amenities and
discomfort sum of Rs.60,000/- is assessed. The
petitioner was under hospitalization and for
improvement of immunity, he requires proper food
and nourishment for about a period of one year.
Hence, towards Food and Nourishment a sum of
Rs.24,000/- is assessed. The injury certainly laid the
petitioner for minimum of one year, therefore, loss of
income during laid up is assessed at Rs.6,500X12=
Rs.78,000/-. The petitioner had traveled to the
MFA.1126/2016
hospitals for treatment and follow-up, conveyance
charges is assessed at Rs.10,000/- and attendant
charges at Rs.10,000/- is assessed. The petitioner
requires future treatment, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is
assessed towards it.
10. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to compensation,
as follows:
Compensation
Sl.No. Heads
(Rs.)
1. Pain and Sufferings 1,00,000/-
2. Medical expenses 1,18,300/-
3. Attendant Charges 10,000/-
4. Conveyance Charges 10,000/-
5. Food and Nourishment 24,000/-
Loss of income during
6. 78,000/-
laid up period
Loss and amenities and
7. 60,000/-
discomfort
Loss of income due to
8. 5,89,680/-
disability
9. Future medical expenses 50,000/-
Total 10,39,980/-
The petitioner is entitled to Rs.10,39,980/- as
against Rs.4,95,600/- assessed by the Tribunal and
MFA.1126/2016
enhanced compensation of Rs.5,44,380/-. It is
adequate compensation in the facts and circumstances
of the case. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be
allowed, in the result, I pass the following;
ORDER
i. The appeal filed by the petitioner is
hereby allowed.
ii. The judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal is modified.
iii. The petitioner would be entitled to
enhanced compensation of
Rs.5,44,380/- with interest at 6%
per annum from the date of petition
till the date of deposit, excluding
interest on future medical expenses.
iv. Respondent No.2 is directed to satisfy
the award within eight weeks from
the date of receipt of certified copy of
this judgment.
MFA.1126/2016
- 10 -
Registry is directed to transmit the records and
also amount, if any, deposited, to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GPG
