Karnataka High Court
Baburao S/O Hanamanth vs Ravichandra And Anr on 19 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3096
MFA No. 201897 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201897 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
BABURAO S/O HANAMANTH,
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER CUM DRIVER OF
AUTO BEARING REGN. NO.KA-32/B-1191,
R/O SHAHABAZAR, TQ: GDA COLONY,
GOKUL NAGAR, KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAVICHANDRA
Digitally S/O PANDURANG JUDPALLI,
signed by
SACHIN AGE: MAJOR,
Location:
HIGH COURT OCC: OWNER CUM DRIVER OF
OF
KARNATAKA TATA ACE VEHICLE BEARING
REGN. NO.KA-32/C-3162,
R/O NEAR NAGAR TEMPLE,
MANIKESHWAR COLONY,
BRAHMPUR, KALABURAGI-585 102.
2. UNIVERSAL SOMPO
GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
2A, 2ND FLOOR,
RAMSON COMPLEX,
P.B. ROAD, HOSUR,
HUBLI-58021.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3096
MFA No. 201897 of 2019
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
V/O DTD. 09.12.2019, NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 02.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.258/2017
ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MACT, KALABURAGI AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING
THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS.14,99,999/- ONLY AS
CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT
AND ORDER FOR COSTS OF THIS APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Nagaraj Patil, learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Sri Sudarshan M., learned counsel
who is representing respondent No.2. Notice to respondent
No.1 stood dispensed with.
2. Seeking enhancement of compensation, the
claimant is before this Court challenging the order that is
rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Kalaburagi in MVC No.258/2017 dated 02.11.2018.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3096
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the appellant sustained fracture to left patella, which is
grievous in nature and took treatment as inpatient.
Learned counsel also states that the disability is
established by producing relevant documents apart from
the evidence of PW.2. Learned counsel also states that the
Tribunal went wrong in assessing the notional income of
the appellant and further did not grant sufficient
compensation under required heads and therefore,
considering these aspects, the appeal be disposed of.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2
Sri Sudarshan M. submits that the appellant sustained only
one grievous injury and therefore, the compensation
granted is justifiable.
5. Admittedly, the appellant did not produce any
proof with regard to his actual occupation and earnings as
on the date of accident. Though he claimed that he was an
auto driver by the date of accident, he did not establish
the said fact. However, as the Karnataka State Legal
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3096
Services Authority is taking the notional income as
Rs.8,750/- in respect of the accidents that occurred in the
year 2016, this Court considers desirable to take the said
figure into consideration. Also, the appellant being aged
about 52 years by the date of accident, 10% of the actual
earning has to be added towards future prospects.
Keeping all other parameters intact i.e., disability as 10%
and the appropriate multiplier to be applied as 11, loss of
future earnings due to disability comes to Rs.1,27,050/-
(Rs.8,750 + 10% x 12 x 11 x 10%).
6. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-
under the head 'pain and suffering'. Having regard to the
nature of injuries sustained, this Court is of the view that
under the head 'pain and suffering', the appellant is
entitled to Rs.30,000/-. Likewise, the Tribunal has
awarded only Rs.1,500/- towards attendant charges, food
and conveyance charges. The same has to be increased to
Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.700/-
towards loss of income during treatment. Having regard to
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3096
the nature of injuries sustained, this Court is of the view
that the appellant would have taken bed rest at least for a
period of two months. Thus, the loss of income during laid
up period comes to Rs.17,500/-. The compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is justifiable.
7. Thus, the compensation, which the appellant is
entitled to under different heads would be as under:
Sl. Heads Amount Amount
No. awarded by the awarded by
Tribunal this Court
1. Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- Rs.30,000/-
2. Attendant charges, food, Rs.1,500/- Rs.10,000/-
and conveyance charges
3. Loss of future income Rs.92,400/- Rs.1,27,050/-
4. Medical expenditure Rs.13,200/- Rs.13,200/-
5. Loss of income during laid Rs.700/- Rs.17,500/-
up period
6. Loss of amenities and Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
nutrition
Total Rs.1,27,800/- Rs.2,07,750/-
8. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the
following:
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3096
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The amount awarded as compensation by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kalaburagi
through orders in MVC No.258/2017 dated
02.11.2018 is enhanced from Rs.1,27,800/- to
Rs.2,07,750/-.
iii. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the
date of deposit. However, the appellant is not
entitled for any interest for the period of delay
of 221 days in preferring the appeal vide orders
in I.A.1/2019 dated 23.09.2022.
iv. The second respondent is directed to deposit
the enhanced amount with interest within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of this order.
v. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LG
