Karnataka High Court
Hanamant vs Muttappa And Anr on 18 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3023
MFA No. 200660 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200660 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
HANAMANT
S/O BASAPPA BHAJANTRI,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: DRUMMER AND DRIVER,
SARUR, MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MUTTAPPA
S/O PARAPPA HARANAL,
Digitally AGE: 45 YEARS,
signed by
SACHIN OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Location:
HIGH COURT KOLUR MUDDEBIHAL,
OF
KARNATAKA VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S.S. FRONT ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
NOTICE TO R-1 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3023
MFA No. 200660 of 2022
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT DATED 23.09.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT VIII AT MUDDEBIHAL IN MVC
NO.1132/2016 AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM
PETITION BY GRANTING THE RELIEF AS PRAYED FAR BY THE
APPELLANTS HEREIN IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Gopalkrishna B Yadav, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant as well as Sri.Preeti Patil
Melkundi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is
rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VIII,
Muddebihal, in MVC No.1132/2016 dated 23.09.2019.
3. On the ground that he sustained grievous
injuries in a road traffic accident and became permanently
disabled, the appellant filed the claim petition claiming
compensation of Rs.18,00,000/-. The Tribunal through the
impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.7,05,400/- as
compensation. Being aggrieved by the quantum of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3023
compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal, the present
appeal is preferred seeking enhancement.
4. Making his submission with regard to the merits
of the matter learned counsel for the appellant states that
the appellant sustained fracture of right femur, fracture of
left femur apart from other injuries. The appellant was
working as a driver and was earning Rs.15,000/- per
month by the date of accident. However, due to the
accident he is unable to attend his professional activities.
Learned counsel states that the Tribunal without
considering the occupation and income of the appellant as
on the date of accident, took the notional income of
Rs.6,000/- per month which is unjustifiable. Learned
counsel also states that though the doctor who treated the
appellant i.e. PW2 deposed that the disability in respect of
the whole body is 40%, the Tribunal went wrong in
considering the disability in respect of the whole body as
30% and therefore, the compensation granted has to be
increased. Learned counsel also submits that the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3023
compensation granted under all other heads also needs
enhancement.
5. Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the appellant
failed to produce any substantive proof with regard to the
occupation and income as on the date of the accident.
Learned counsel also states that the disability assessed by
the Tribunal is valid and there are no grounds to interfere
with the reasoned order of the Tribunal.
6. As per the version of the appellant, he was
working as a driver by the date of accident. The Tribunal
considering the Driving Licence that was produced by the
appellant, expressing its opinion that the Driving Licence
for driving heavy transport vehicles is lapsed by
27.09.2009 and was not renewed thereafter and that his
Driving Licence to drive other vehicles also was valid only
up to 20.06.2020, took the notional income of the
appellant as Rs.6,000/- per month. The accident
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3023
admittedly occurred in the year 2016. By the year 2016,
admittedly the appellant was having driving licence to
drive the vehicles other than transport. That apart even
the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the
notional income as Rs.8,750/- per month in respect of the
accidents that occurred in the year 2016 for assessing the
compensation. Therefore, this Court considers desirable to
take the notional income of the appellant at Rs.8,750/- per
month.
7. Though learned counsel for the appellant also
argued that the disability in respect of the whole body that
is assessed by the Tribunal is wrong, this Court does not
find any merit. The Tribunal has considered all the aspects
of the case, and assessed the disability in respect of whole
body as 30% which requires no interference. By taking
the notional income as Rs.8,750/- per month, adding 25%
towards future prospects, the appellant being aged about
42 years at the time of accident, by applying appropriate
multiplier '14' with disability as 30%, the loss of earning
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3023
due to permanent disability would be Rs.5,51,250/- (8,750
+ 25% x 12 x 14 x 30%).
8. Apart from fracture of left femur and fracture of
upper 1/3rd of right femur, the claimant has suffered injury
over right thigh and abrasion over right knee. The
appellant took extensive treatment as an inpatient.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the amount which
is just and reasonable to be awarded under the head pain
and sufferings would be Rs.70,000/-. The appellant would
have taken bed rest at least for a period of four months.
Thus, the loss of earnings during laid up period comes to
Rs.35,000/- (Rs.8750 x 4). Thus, the appellant is entitled
for compensation under different heads as under:
1. Pain and Suffering Rs.70,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.3,00,000/-
3. Loss of amenities Rs.12,000/-
4. Travelling and attendant Rs.25,000/-
charges
5. Future loss of income due Rs.5,51,250/-
to disability
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3023
6. Loss of income during laid Rs.35,000/-
up period
TOTAL Rs.9,93,250/-
Thus, the enhancement in compensation would be
Rs.2,87,850/- (Rs.9,93,250/- - Rs.7,05,400/-).
09. In the light of the foregoing discussions
following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The amount awarded as compensation by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-VIII,
Muddebihal, through orders in MVC
No.1132/2016 dated 23.09.2019 is enhanced
by Rs.2,87,850/-.
iii. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the
date of deposit.
iv. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount with interest within a period
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3023
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
v. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AP
