Karnataka High Court
Mahadev S/O Srimanth Hulsure vs Santosh And Anr on 28 November, 2023
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8874-DB
MFA No. 202656 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202656 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MAHADEV S/O SRIMANTH HULSURE,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O VILLAGE MORAMBI,
TQ: BHALKI,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
HIREMATH COLONY, BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST: BIDAR - 585327.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. SANTOSH S/O GHALEPPA,
SOMANATH AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
PENTAPPA MITTE
Location: High OWNER OF VEHICLE NO.KA-39/7585,
Court of
Karnataka R/O. VILLAGE MORAMBI,
TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR - 585328.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
3/5, 3RD FLOOR, SB ARCADE,
BELEKANHALLI MAIN ROAD,
OFF BG ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560076.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8874-DB
MFA No. 202656 of 2019
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 30.10.2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE II ADDL.
DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, BIDAR, SITTING
AT BASAVAKALYAN, IN M.V.C.NO.460/2016 AND ENHANCE /
GRANT JUST AND REASONABLE COMPENSATION BY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
C.M.JOSHI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for
short) has been filed by the appellant-claimant being
aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.10.2018
passed in MVC No.460/2016 by the Court of II Addl.
District and Sessions Judge and Addl. MACT, Bidar,
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for short).
2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with
the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, it is
taken up for final disposal.
3. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8874-DB
4. The facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that, the petitioner was working as a
cleaner of lorry bearing registration No.KA-39/7585 and
was getting monthly salary of Rs.10,000/- along with
bhatta of Rs.200/- per day. On 07.10.2015 about 10.30
hours, when he was proceeding to Hyderabad to unload
the vehicle on Nasik-Pune National Highway, the driver of
the said lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner and while abruptly applying brakes, lost control
over the vehicle and it turned turtle. As a result the
petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the said accident.
5. The petitioner contended that he was shifted to
Sinner Patil Hospital for treatment and thereafter shifted
to Kothadia Hospital Solapur, and admitted as indoor
patient for 12 days and undergone operation to his
fracture injuries and incurred Rs.1,00,000/- towards
medical and other expenses. The petitioner needs another
Rs.1,00,000/- for further treatment. At the time of
accident, the petitioner was aged about 26 years working
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8874-DB
as cleaner. It was contended that he has been
permanently disabled and lost source of income. Hence, he
preferred a claim petition seeking compensation.
6. After service of notice, respondent No.1 did not
appear and as such placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2
appeared and filed written statement denying the contents
of claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim
petition.
7. On the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal framed
relevant issues for consideration.
8. In order to substantiate the issues and to
establish the case, petitioner got examined himself as
PW.1 and also examined a Doctor as PW.2 and got marked
documents as Exs.P1 to P54. On the other hand,
respondent No.2-Insurer did not adduce any evidence,
however got marked the policy as Ex.R1.
9. The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments and
considering the material on record, allowed the petition in
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8874-DB
part and awarded compensation of Rs.2,94,000/- under
following heads, along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
from the date of petition till realization and directed the
respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount.
Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the petitioner is in appeal before this Court
seeking enhancement of compensation amount.
Sl.No. Heads By Tribunal
1. Injury pain and sufferings Rs.10,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.59,947/-
3. Treatment and Rest Rs.16,000/-
4. Food, nourishment, Rs.10,000/-
conveyance
5. Attendant charges Rs.5,000/-
6. For removal of rod Rs.20,000/-
5. Loss of future income Rs.1,63,200/-
6. Loss of amenities and Rs.5,000/-
future unhappiness
7. Conveyance and Rs.5,000/-
nourishment
Total Rs.2,94,147/-
Rounded off
Rs.2,94,000/-
10. We have heard the learned counsel for
appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2-
Insurance Company.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8874-DB
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower
side. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel
for appellant-petitioner that the tribunal has erred in
awarding adequate compensation despite placing on
record relevant documents regarding the permanent
disability and seeks indulgence of the Court to allow the
appeal and consequently to enhance the compensation.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.2/Insurance Company supports the
judgment and award passed by the tribunal, contending
that the same does not call for any interference. Hence,
prays to dismiss the appeal.
13. We have perused the records and considered
the submission made by the learned counsel for the
parties.
14. The accidental injuries sustained by the
petitioner and the liability of respondent No.2 to pay the
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8874-DB
compensation is not in dispute. In order to prove the
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending Lorry
driver, the petitioner has produced FIR which is marked as
Ex.P1. The said documents disclose that the accident has
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the
driver of the offending Lorry.
15. Insofar as quantum of compensation is
concerned, the petitioner has contended that prior to the
accident he was hale and healthy, aged about 26 years
and working as cleaner and earning Rs.10,000/- per
month. Due the accident he has suffered permanent
disability. In order to substantiate the same, he has
examined the doctor as PW.2, who deposed that he has
examined the petitioner and issued disability certificate as
per Ex.P52. The said document discloses that petitioner
has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 10% to
his whole body. Considering the nature of injuries and the
disability, the tribunal has taken the functional disability of
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8874-DB
petitioner at 10% which needs to be enhanced to 15% as
the petitioner was a cleaner in the lorry.
16. The petitioner has not produced any evidence
with regard to his income. Therefore, the notional income
has to be considered. The guidelines issued by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for settlement of
disputes before Lok Adalat prescribe a notional income of
Rs 8,000/- for the year 2015. In umpteen number of
decisions, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by
the KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages fixed
under Minimum wages Act. The petitioner is aged about 26
years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable
to his age group is '17' which is rightly taken by the
tribunal. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation
of ( 8000 x 12 x 15% x 17=) Rs.2,44,800/- on account of
'loss of future income'.
17. Towards pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- is
awarded as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8874-DB
18. Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.59,947/- on the basis of medical bills and Rs.
20,000/- towards future medical expenses on the bases of
evidence of PW.2 and documents produced by the
petitioner. There is no reason to interfere with the same.
19. Towards conveyance and nourishment, the
Tribunal has awarded twice. Therefore, considering the
period of inpatient treatment, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is
awarded under the head of Food, nourishment, attendant
and conveyance charges.
20. The tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards
loss of amenities and future unhappiness. It is not in
dispute that the petitioner has taken treatment as
inpatient for a period of 12 days. We are of the opinion
that Rs.25,000/- would be reasonable amount under this
head.
21. Considering the nature of the injuries, it can
safely be said that it requires three months for the
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8874-DB
petitioner to get back to his normal work. Thus, the loss of
income during laid up period comes to Rs.24,000/-
(Rs.8,000/- X 3 months).
22. Hence, the compensation is re-assessed under
different heads as under;
Sl.No. Heads Award
1. Injury pain and sufferings Rs.20,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.59,947/-
3. Future Medical expenses Rs.20,000/-
3. Loss of income during laid Rs.24,000/-
up period
4. Food, nourishment, Rs.15,000/-
attendant, conveyance
charges
5. Loss of future income Rs.2,44,800/-
6. Loss of amenities Rs.25,000/-
Total Rs.4,08,747/-
Less awarded by Tribunal Rs.2,94,000/-
Enhancement Rs.1,14,747/-
Rounded off to Rs.1,15,000/-
23. The petitioner is entitled for a total
compensation of Rs.4,08,747/- as against Rs.2,94,000/-
awarded by the tribunal. Hence, the petitioner is entitled
for an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,14,747/- which is
rounded of to Rs.1,15,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8874-DB
24. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(a) The appeal is allowed in part.
(b) The impugned judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal is modified. In addition to the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the
petitioner is entitled for an enhanced
compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- along with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till realization.
(c) The respondent No.2-Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the enhanced compensation
amount before the tribunal within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this judgment.
(d) The rest of the order passed by the tribunal is not
disturbed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MSR
