Karnataka High Court
Sri A R Siddesh vs N K Channappa on 22 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:41999
MFA No. 1146 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA NO. 1146 OF 2013 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI A R SIDDESH
S/O A. RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST & FLOOR
MILL RUNNER , R/O ANAJI VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577 512 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M G CONTRACTOR., ADV.)
AND:
1. N K CHANNAPPA
S/O LATE N. KURUWATTEPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
OWNER OF MARUTHI OMNI VAN
BEARING REG.NO.KA-17/N-4379
R/O ANAJI VILLAGE - 577 512
DAVANAGERE TALUK
Digitally signed by MALA 2. NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD.
KN REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
MELAGIRI PLAZA
Location: HIGH COURT
DENTAL COLLEGE ROAD
OF KARNATAKA
M.C.C. B BLOCK, DAVANAGERE - 577 702
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. M. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV. FOR R2;
R1- SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.12.2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.706/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, DAVANAGERE,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:41999
MFA No. 1146 of 2013
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the petitioner has challenged the
judgment and award dated 04.12.2012 in
M.V.C.No.706/2011 passed by the I Addl. Senior
Civil Judge and M.A.C.T.-V, Davangere ('the Tribunal'
for short).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties
shall be referred to as per their status before the
Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are, on 03.05.2011 at
about 07:00 pm the petitioner while travelling in the
Maruti Omni van bearing Reg.No.KA-17/N-4379 on
Kandanakovi-Anaji Road near Giriyapura Village in
Davangere Taluk, its driver in an attempt to
overtake the bullock-cart, capsized into the roadside
pit, causing injuries to the petitioner. After taking
treatment at Bapuji Hospital, Davangere, S.S.
Hospital, Davangere and K.M.C. Hospital, Manipal
NC: 2023:KHC:41999
under hospitalization, the petitioner seeking
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, approached the
Tribunal. Claim was opposed by the Insurance
Company. The Tribunal after taking the evidence,
awarded the compensation of Rs.1,70,400/-.
Pleading inadequacy and seeking enhancement, the
petitioner has filed this appeal on various grounds.
4. Heard the arguments of
Sri. M.G. Contractor, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri. A.N. Krishnaswamy, learned
counsel for the Insurance Company.
5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner has suffered burst
fracture of left vertibra at L1 spine, he was under
hospitalization at Manipal Hospital for 21 days,
S.S. Hospital, Davangere for 5 days, in all 26 days.
He has spent huge money towards treatment, being
an Agriculturist and as owner of flour-mill, earning
more than Rs.10,000/- per month. The medical
NC: 2023:KHC:41999
evidence is placed before the Tribunal proving whole
body disability of 18%. The Tribunal in spite of the
evidence being placed, took the income of the
petitioner at Rs.4,000/-, assessed the disability at
7% and awarded the compensation under different
heads on the lower side and he sought for
enhancement of the compensation.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has contended that post-treatment, the
petitioner became normal as the medical evidence
itself suggests that the treatment is successful, there
is no physical disability affecting his earning
capacity. The Tribunal has rightly considered the
percentage of disability, compensation assessed
under various heads is on par with the nature of
injuries sustained by the petitioner. Learned counsel
is fair in submitting that a person with no proof of
income in the year 2011 will be assessed at
Rs.6,500/- in Lok Adalat and income of the petitioner
NC: 2023:KHC:41999
may be taken at Rs.6,500/-. It is also contended
that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at
7% is on the higher side, no banks will offer interest
at 7% and it has to be 6% and he supported the
impugned judgment.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on both sides and also perused
the materials on record.
8. On perusal of the material on record, it is
pertinent to note that there was an accident in which
the petitioner was an inmate of the car which
capsized to the pit in an attempt to overtake the
bullock-cart on 03.04.2011 at 07:00 pm injuring the
petitioner. Records show that the petitioner has
suffered burst fracture of left vertibra at L1 spine
and he has been treated at various hospitals.
Petitioner was under hospitalization for a period of
26 days. PW-3 is the Doctor gave the evidence that
due to the injury, petitioner has suffered 18% whole
NC: 2023:KHC:41999
body disability, whereas the Tribunal assessed
at 7%. If the nature of injuries and also the
avocation of the petitioner is taken into
consideration, I do not found any reason to dispute
with the disability sustained. As deposed by PW-3,
18% cannot be taken, but 10% of whole body is the
reasonable disability which can be considered in the
circumstances of the case for the purpose of
calculation of loss of future earnings.
9. The petitioner has not produced any
evidence in proof of his income, except Ex.P8 to P12
RTC Extracts and also Flourmill Licence at Ex.P13.
The nature of injury may cause some discomfort to
the petitioner. He may suffer loss of supervision of
the agriculture and there is no material evidence
that he himself was operating the flourmill. Hence,
the income of the petitioner could be safely taken at
Rs.6,500/- as the accident was of the year 2011,
accordingly calculation has to be made.
NC: 2023:KHC:41999
10. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,70,400/- as
total compensation under 5 heads, i.e.,
Sl. No. Particulars Rs.
1 For pain and suffering 25,000
2 Medical expenses, diet and 70,000
nourishment
3 Loss of income during laid up 15,000
period
4 Loss of future income on account 50,400
of permanent physical disability
5 Loss of amenities and enjoyment 10,000
of life
Total 1,70,400
11. The Tribunal has not considered the
materials placed before it with regard to travelling
expenses, loss of amenities that a person who has
suffered a burst fracture will undergo. Ex.P79 and
P80 are the discharge cards which ratify the 26 days
of hospitalization. Medical bills constitute a sum of
Rs.45,000/-. The petitioner has to be awarded
compensation under as many as eight heads in a
case of this nature, whereas the Tribunal has
merged several heads into one. Hence, the
compensation has to be assessed distinguishingly.
NC: 2023:KHC:41999
12. Towards pain and sufferings, the petitioner
has to be assessed at Rs.30,000/-, medical expenses
of Rs.45,000/- has to be reimbursed. The petitioner
has attended by an attendant for a period of one
month, hence attendant charges of Rs.6,500/- has to
be awarded. Towards food and nourishment, a sum
of Rs.10,000/- and travelling expenses of
Rs.10,000/- has to be assessed. The petitioner will
be laid up for not less than 6 months. Hence, loss of
income during laid-up has to be awarded at
Rs.39,000/-. Towards loss of amenities and
discomfort, a sum of Rs.30,000/- has to be
assessed.
13. Regarding loss of future earnings is
concerned, the petitioner is aged 42 years and
applicable multiplier is '14'. As discussed above, his
income will be Rs.6,500/- and disability will be 10%.
Then, loss of future earnings will be Rs.6,500/- +
Rs.2,600/- (25% future prospects) = Rs.9,100/- x
NC: 2023:KHC:41999
12 x 14 x 10% = Rs.1,52,880/-. If all these are
summed up, total compensation that the petitioner is
entitled to will be Rs.3,23,380/- as against
Rs.1,70,400/-, thereby enhancement of
Rs.1,52,980/-, rounded off to Rs.1,53,000/-. This is
the just compensation that the petitioner is entitled
to in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Hence, the appeal merits consideration, in the result,
the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed-in-part.
ii) Impugned judgment and award is
modified.
iii) Petitioner is entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.1,53,000/- with
interest of 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till its realization,
iv) The Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the compensation within eight
weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of the judgment.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:41999
v) Amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal along with
records forthwith.
SD/-
JUDGE
PA
CT:HS
