Karnataka High Court
Haridev S/O Pandharinath Jadhav vs Ravindra S/O Arjun Mutte And Anr on 17 March, 2023
Bench: G Basavaraja
-1-
MFA No. 200999 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200999 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. HARIDEV S/O PANDHARINATH JADHAV
AGED: ABOUT 35 YEARS.
OCC: KIRANA BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE
R/O GADIRAIPALLY TQ. BASAVAKALYAN
DIST: BIDAR
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANJEEVKUMAR C PATIL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAVINDRA S/O ARJUN MUTTE
AGE: 31 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS AND OWNER
OF AUTO RIKSHA BEARING NO.KA-39/4370
R/O SASTAPUR, TQ. BASAVAKALYAN
Digitally DIST: BIDAR-585327
signed by
RAMESH
MATHAPATI 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
Location: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
High Court DR. JAWALI COMPLEX, SUPER MARKET
of KALABURAGI-585101
Karnataka
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 D/W)
THIS MFA FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED-29.12.2015 PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT AT-BASAVAKALAYN, IN
M.V.C.NO.82/2014, BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
MFA No. 200999 of 2017
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the
consent of both counsel, it is taken up for final disposal.
This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking
enhancement of compensation passed Senior Civil Judge &
Addl. MACT, Basavakalyan, (for short 'Tribunal') in
MVC.No.82/2014 dated 29.12.2015.
2. The facts of the case are that on 14.10.2013 he
was traveling towards Basavakalyan bus stand from
Sastapur Bunglow in Ape Auto bearing Reg.No.KA-
39/4370, at that time, the driver of the said auto drove
the same in a rash and negligent manner and lost control
over it, it was turtled. On account of which, petitioner by
falling sustained fractures to his all over body. He claimed
that he was treated an inpatient and that he spent money
towards his medical treatment.
3. The claim petition was resisted by the insurer
who generally denied the accident as well as the age and
MFA No. 200999 of 2017
income of the deceased. It also denied the involvement of
the offending vehicle.
4. Based on these rival contentions, the claim
petition was set down for trial.
5. Based on the oral and documentary evidence,
the Tribunal after considering the notional monthly income
of the claimant awarded compensation of Rs.3,05,000/-
with interest at 6% p.a.
6. Being aggrieved by the quantum of the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the present appeal
is filed.
7. The learned counsel for the claimant contended
that having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained
by the claimant, the Tribunal ought to have awarded
adequate compensation.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurer
supported the judgment and award of the Tribunal and
MFA No. 200999 of 2017
therefore contended that the judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal be not disturbed.
9. It is seen that the owner/insurer had not
challenged the judgment and award and therefore
accepted the liability to pay the compensation. Insofar as
claim for compensation is concerned, injuries show that
claimant had suffered permanent disability.
10. Since the accident is of the year 2013, the
income ought to have been taken at Rs.7,000/- per
month. Looking to the nature of injuries suffered it would
be appropriate to take the whole body disability at 15%.
With these components the compensation under the head
loss of income due to disability is Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 16 x
15% = Rs.2,01,600/- as against Rs.1,72,800/- granted by
the Tribunal. Considering the nature of injuries, period of
treatment, medical bills, I am of the considered opinion
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves
to be re-determined and re-calculated as under:-
MFA No. 200999 of 2017
Sl. Heads Amount awarded Amount awarded
No by the Tribunal by this Court
1. Loss of future earning Rs.1,72,800/- Rs.2,01,600/-
(7,000x12x16x15%)
2. Pain & sufferings Rs.25,000/- Rs.40,000/-
3. Loss of income during Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
laid period
4. Attendant, diet & Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
conveyance etc
5. Medical expenses Rs.87,200/- Rs.87,700/-
6. Loss of amenities ---- Rs.30,000/-
Total Rs.3,05,000/- Rs.3,79,300/-
11. To this extent, the appeal deserves to be
modified and Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The appellant is entitled for compensation
in a sum of Rs.3,79,300/- as against
Rs.3,05,000/- granted by the Tribunal
together with interest at 6% p.a., from the
date of petition till realization.
(iii) Respondent/Insurance company shall
deposit the compensation amount together
with interest at 6% p.a. within a period of
six weeks from the date of this order.
MFA No. 200999 of 2017
(iv) Vide order dated 30.06.2017, the
petitioner is not entitled to any interest on
the enhanced compensation for the
delayed period of 431 days.
(v) Registry is directed to send a copy of this
order to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SDU
