Karnataka High Court
Pampapathi vs Veeres @ Veereshappa on 11 January, 2023
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
MFA No. 102760 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102760 OF 2014 (MV-
I)
BETWEEN:
PAMPAPATHI S/O SHIVAPPA SHAKAPUR,
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: ROD BENDING MESTRI,
R/O: MURAHARI NAGAR,
GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M AMARE GOUDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VEERES @ VEERESHAPPA
S/O PAMPAPATHI,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: RIDER COM OWNER OF HERO
HONDA MOTOR CYCYE NO.KA-37/L-3885,
R/O HOSALLI, TQ: GANGAVATHI,
DIST: KOPPAL.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, SANMAN TOURIST
COMPLEX ISLAMPUR, GANGAVATHI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.G.JADHAV, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988,
AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:15.09.2011, PASSED IN
MVC.NO.41/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
M.A.C.T., AT GANGAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, ON THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
MFA No. 102760 of 2014
JUDGMENT
Challenging impugned judgment and award dated
15.09.2011 passed by Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., at
Gangavathi, in M.V.C.No.41/2011, this appeal is filed by
claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Occurrence of accident on 30.12.2010, due to rash and
negligent riding of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-37/L-
3885 and claimant sustaining injuries therein is not in dispute.
Issuance of insurance policy and it's validity as on date of
accident are also not in dispute. Claimant filed claim petition
under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Tribunal has
allowed in part. Not satisfied with quantum of compensation
claimant is in appeal.
3. Sri.M.Amaregouda, learned counsel for claimant/appellant
submits that though claimant had stated that he was 28 years of
age, working as bar-bender and earning more than Rs.9,000/-
per month, tribunal considered his monthly income at meager
amount Rs.3,000/-. Same calls for enhancement. Consequently,
compensation towards 'loss of earning during laid up period' also
requires to be scaled up. It was further submitted that claimant
sustained fracture of right tibia assessed by P.W.2-
Dr.H.Mallanagouda for disability to whole body disability at 10 to
13%. However, tribunal considered it as 10% which requires
MFA No. 102760 of 2014
enhancement. Tribunal awarded meager compensation towards
'loss of amenities at Rs.4,000/- which requires enhancement.
4. Sri.A.G.Jadhav, learned counsel for insurer/respondent
supported award and opposed enhancement. On consideration of
entire material on record tribunal awarded just compensation
and same does not call for enhancement.
5. From above submission only point that would arise for
consideration is:
"Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of
compensation?."
6. Though claimant has stated that his monthly income was
Rs.9,000/-, there is no specific evidence led to substantiate
same. In absence, it has to be assessed notionally which for year
2010 is Rs.5,500/-. Therefore same has to be considered.
Insofar as disability, PW.2-doctor assessed limb disability at 10
to 13%. Tribunal considered whole body disability at 10% which
appears to be adequate and no enhancement is called for.
7. Thus 'loss of future earning' would be as follows:
Rs.5,500 x 10% x12 x 17 =1,12,200/-
8. Tribunal has assessed 'loss of income during laid-up
period for three months. In view of re-computation of monthly
income, same would be Rs.16,500/-. Tribunal has considered
MFA No. 102760 of 2014
Rs.23,642/- against medical bills which is in complete
reimbursement. Therefore, no enhancement is called for.
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards loss of amenities
which would be grossly inadequate considering
fracture/disability. It would be appropriate to award a sum of
Rs.15,000/-. Tribunal awarded sum of Rs.3,000/- towards
'Conveyance, Nourishment Food and attendant charges'.
Claimant has taken inpatient treatment for one month, it would
be appropriate to award Rs.15,000/-.
9. Thus reassessed compensation under various heads is as
follows:
Sl.no. Compensation under Heads Amount Rs.
1 Injury pain and sufferings 25,000/-
2 Loss of earning during laid up 16,500/-
period
3 Medical Expenses 23, 642/-
4 Loss of future earnings 11,12,200/-
5 Loss of amenities 15,000/-
6 Conveyance, Nourishment, food 15,000/-
and attendant charges
Total 2,07,342/-
10. Point for consideration is answered partly in
affirmative as above. Consequently, I pass following:
MFA No. 102760 of 2014
ORDER
a) Appeal is allowed in part.
b) Claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,07,342/- as
against Rs.1,25,842/- awarded by Tribunal and claimant
is entitled for interest at rate of 6% per annum on
enhanced compensation excluding for 1048 days for
delay period in filling this appeal.
c) Insurer is directed to deposit enhanced compensation
within six weeks
d) Directions issued by Tribunal regarding amount to be
deposited and release shall apply to enhance
compensation also proportionately.
SD/-
JUDGE
AC
