Karnataka High Court
Sri.Dayanand vs Sri.Saidappa And Anr on 2 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2750
MFA No. 202272 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202272 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI DAYANAND,
S/O AMBANNA @ AMANNA GUJAGOND,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE, NOW NIL,
R/O. NELLOGI VILLAGE.
TQ: JEWARGI,
DIST: KALABURAGI,
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ANAND V TURE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. SRI SAIDAPPA S/O RAJAPPA,
signed by
SACHIN AGE:MAJOR,
Location:
HIGH COURT OCC: BUSINESS,
OF
KARNATAKA R/O. GUBBI COLONY,
SEDAM ROAD,
DIST: KALABURAGI-585 104.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
NO.10-2-7, POST BOX NO.12,
IIND FLOOR, S.B. TEMPLE ROAD,
SANGAMESHWAR NAGAR,
KALABURAGI-585 103.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2750
MFA No. 202272 of 2019
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHASHIKALA JAHAGIRDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
V/O DTD. 08.11.2022 NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC AND MACT, JEWARGI IN MVC NO.565/2018
DATED 17.08.2019, BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS
PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Anand V Ture, learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Sri.Shashikala Jahagirdar, learned
counsel for respondent No.2. Notice to respondent No.1
stood dispensed with.
2. Seeking a higher sum as compensation, the
present appeal is preferred by the claimant in MVC
No.565/2018, which stood pending before Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Jewaragi and was disposed off by order
dated 17.08.2019.
3. The case of the appellant as borne by the
records is that on 11.06.2017, while the appellant was
waiting for a vehicle at Nelogi cross, the rider of a Hero
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2750
Honda Splendor Plus motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-32/ED-2695, rode the said motorcycle at a high
speed and in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed
against him, due to which he fell down and sustained
injuries.
4. Sri.Anand V Ture, arguing the matter submits
that the appellant sustained grievous injuries due to the
accident and became permanently disabled. Learned
counsel also states that the appellant is not in a position to
attend atleast his normal pursuits. But, the Tribunal took
the disability in respect of whole body as 16%, which is
unjustifiable. Learned counsel also states that after filing
of the appeal, the appellant got himself subjected to
examination by the Board constituted for assessment of
disability and the Board issued disability certificate, duly
mentioning that the appellant is disabled by 80% and the
said disability certificate is filed along with a petition, vide
I.A.No.1/2024. Therefore, considering the said disability
certificate, sufficient amount may be awarded as
compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2750
5. Opposing the submissions made by Sri.Anand V
Ture, Smt.Shashikala Jahagirdar, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the appellant
examined PW-2, who assessed the disability before the
Court and PW-2 did not state that the appellant is
suffering from Post Traumatic Hemiparesis and thus, the
disability certificate produced before this Court cannot be
taken into consideration.
6. A perusal of the records reveals justification in
the submission made by Smt.Shashikala Jahagirdar.
Basing on the observations that the appellant sustained
fracture of C6 and C7 vertebrae, PW-2 stated that the
disability is 49%. No substantive proof is on record to
show that there is neurological disorder due to the injuries
sustained. Therefore, this court is of the view that
I.A.No.1/2024, which is filed for production of additional
evidence cannot be entertained.
7. The whole case of the appellant is that as
agriculturist he was earning huge sum. But, due to the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2750
accident, he lost his earnings. The Tribunal appreciating
the fact that the appellant produced Ex.202 to 204,
Records of Rights and they show that he owns 5-27 acres
of dry land and his wife owns 3 acres, took the notional
income as Rs.6,750/- per month. This approach is highly
unjustifiable. As rightly contended, for the accidents that
occurred in the year 2017, the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority is taking the notional income as
Rs.10,250/-, where the actual income is not established by
the claimant. However, in the case on hand, the appellant
has clearly established that he possess agricultural land
and that he was doing agriculture by the date of accident.
Therefore, this Court considers desirable to take notional
income of the appellant as Rs.15,000/- per month. Having
regard to the fact that the appellant was disabled by 16%
to do his work and that his age was about 35 years by the
date of the accident, 40% of the income is added towards
future prospects as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2750
(2017) 16 SCC 680. Applying the multiplier as 16, with
assessment of disability in respect of whole body as 16%,
the loss of earning due to disability comes to
Rs.6,45,120/-(Rs.15,000+40%= Rs.21,000 x 12 x 16
x16%). Also this Court is of the view that the amount
awarded as compensation under all other heads requires
marginal enhancement. Having regard to the nature of
injuries sustained, this Court is of the view that the
appellant would not have attended his normal pursuits at
least for a period of three months. Thus, loss of earning
during laid up period comes to Rs.45,000/-. Thus, the
compensation, to which the appellant is entitled to is as
under:
SL. HEADS OF Compensation awarded by
NO. COMPENSATION
Tribunal This Court
1 Loss of future income Rs.2,07,000/- Rs.6,45,120/-
due to disability
2 Medical expenses Rs.1,74,000/- Rs.1,74,000/-
3 Loss of income during Rs.10,000/- Rs.45,000/-
treatment and laid up
period
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2750
4 Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- Rs.40,000/-
5. Food, conveyance and Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/-
attendants charges
during treatment and
laid up period
Total Rs.4,31,000/- Rs.9,24,120/-
Enhancement Rs.4,93,120/-
8. Thus, the following orders:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The compensation granted by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Jewaragi, through orders in MVC
No.565/2018 dated 17.08.2019 is
enhanced from Rs.4,31,000/- to
Rs.9,24,120/-.
c) The enhanced amount shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from
the date of petition, till the date of
deposit.
d) The second respondent is directed to
deposit the enhanced sum within a
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2750
period of eight weeks, from the date
of receipt of copy of this order.
e) On depositing the compensation, the
appellant is permitted to withdraw
50% of the enhanced sum. The
remaining amount shall be kept in
fixed deposit, in any nationalized bank
in the name of the appellant for a
period of five years.
f) On completion of the said period, the
appellant is at liberty to withdraw the
same along with accrued interest.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NJ
