Karnataka High Court
Sri Nandakumar J vs Sri Vinayaka Transport on 28 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43065
MFA No. 3734 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA NO. 3734 OF 2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI NANDAKUMAR J
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O. RAMACHANDRA, R/AT NO. SB-1
RAHUL DENS, DODDANEKKUNDI
MARATHAHALLI COLONY
BANGALORE NORTH
BANGALORE 560 037 AND ALSO
R/AT C/O. JANAPRIYA APARTMENT
1ST AVENUE, B4/203
NELAMANGALA 562 123 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHANDRANNA N., ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI VINAYAKA TRANSPORT
OPP. SATISH PETROL BUNK
BY-PASS ROAD, NH 04
NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE RURAL
Digitally signed by
MALA K N DIST 562 123. RC OWNER VEHICLE
BEARING, NO. KA-52-A-0537
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE CO LTD., UNNATI ARCADE
5/111 AND 6/112, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST BLOCK
DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, 133 MAIN ROAD
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 010
POLICY NO. 140121723340019595
VALID FROM 05.09.2017 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.PADMA S. UTTUR, ADV. FOR
SRI.ASHOK N. PATIL, ADV. FOR R2;
R1 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43065
MFA No. 3734 of 2020
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.01.2019
PASSED IN MVC NO. 7215/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE
MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-4),
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
In this appeal, the petitioner has challenged the
judgment and award dated 23.01.2019 in
M.V.C.No.7215/2017 passed by the M.A.C.T.,
Bengaluru City (SCCH-4) ('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 15.09.2017 at
about 01:30 pm, the petitioner was standing near
Dasanapura Panchayat Office, a lorry bearing
Reg.No.KA-52/A-0537 ran over on his left foot,
causing him the crush injury. He has taken
treatment at Fortis Hospital, Magnus Hospital and
NC: 2023:KHC:43065
thereafter approached the Tribunal for grant of
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. Claim was
opposed by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal
after taking the evidence, by impugned judgment
awarded a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- with 6% interest
p.a. Pleading inadequacy and seeking enhancement,
the petitioner has filed this appeal on various
grounds.
4. Heard the arguments of Sri. Chandranna. N,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Padma.
S, learned counsel on behalf of Sri. Ashok. N. Patil,
learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner has suffered injury to
his left foot with amputation of greater and little toe.
He being the Electrician lost the earning. The
Tribunal has not assessed the compensation
properly, assessed the loss of future income globally
NC: 2023:KHC:43065
and he sought for enhancement of the
compensation.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has contended that the petitioner has not
adduced any medical evidence in proof of the
disability and for this reason, the Tribunal has
awarded global compensation for loss of future
earnings and she fairly accepts that a nominal
enhancement may be given keeping in mind the
Schedule-I of Workmen's Compensation Act.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on both sides and also perused
the materials on record.
8. There is no dispute as to the accident, cause
of the accident and the injury sustained by the
petitioner on account of the accident. Medical
records suggest that the petitioner has suffered
crush injury measuring 18 x 6 cm with loss of great
toe and small toe. He has also suffered loss of
NC: 2023:KHC:43065
tendons, bones, skin and subcutaneous tissue.
Schedule-I of the Workmen's Compensation Act
speaks that whole body disability shall be 5% in a
case of loss of greater toe and the smaller toe.
Hence, the whole body disability shall be taken at
5% in the absence of medical evidence.
9. In the year 2017, a person with no proof of
income will earn not less than Rs.11,000/-. Since
the petitioner has not produced any proof of income,
notional income of Rs.11,000/- is assessed. The
petitioner was aged 43 years on the date of accident,
the applicable multiplier is '14'. Then, loss of future
earnings will be Rs.11,000/- + Rs.2,750/- (25%
future prospects) = Rs.13,750/- x 12 x 14 x 5% =
Rs.1,15,500/-. The petitioner is entitled to
Rs.60,000/- towards pain and sufferings,
Rs.66,000/- towards loss of income during laid-up
for 6 months, Rs.25,000/- towards incidental
expenses, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities and
NC: 2023:KHC:43065
discomfort, having regard to crush injury on his foot
with loss of tendons, bones, skin and tissues,
Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses and
medical expenses of Rs.3,70,000/-. If all these are
summed up, total compensation comes to
Rs.6,96,500/- as against Rs.5,90,000/-, thereby
enhancement of Rs.1,06,500/-. 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.1,06,500/- with
interest of 6% p.a. excluding interest
on future medical expenses.
NC: 2023:KHC:43065
iv) The Insurance Company is directed
to deposit the compensation within
eight weeks from the date of receipt
of certified copy of the judgment.
v) Amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal along with
records forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PA
CT:HS
