Karnataka High Court
Shivanand S/O Sidraya Biradar vs Sangappa And Anr on 2 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2751
MFA No. 201462 of 2021
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. 201462 OF 2021 (ECA -)
BETWEEN:
SHIVANAND
S/O SIDRAYA BIRADAR,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: EARLIER COOLIE,
R/O. JADAR BABALAD,
TQ: JATH, DIST SANGLI,
NOW RESIDING AT KANAMADI,
TQ AND DIST: VIJAYAPUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
SACHIN 1. SANGAPPA S/O SHIVAGOUND MALABADI,
Location: AGE: 52 YEARS,
HIGH COURT
OF OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINESS,
KARNATAKA
R/O. KANMADI
TQ AND DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE ORINETAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
S.S FRONT ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR-585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2751
MFA No. 201462 of 2021
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
V/O DTD. 07.12.2021 NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF ECA ACT, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.06.2020
PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MACT VII AT VIJAYAPURA, IN E/C/A NO.409/2014, BY
ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING THE
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this appeal is the order that is rendered
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - VII, Vijayapura in
E.C.A.No.409/2014 dated 17.06.2020. On the ground that
the amount awarded as compensation is grossly low, the
present appeal is preferred by the claimant.
2. Heard Sri.Sanjeevkumar C Patil, learned
counsel for the appellant as well as Sri. Narendra Reddy,
learned counsel arguing on behalf of Sri.Manavendra
reddy, learned counsel on record for respondent No.2.
Notice to respondent no.1 stood dispensed with.
3. The case of the appellant in nutshell is that he
was working as a coolie under respondent No.1.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2751
Respondent No.1 owned a Tempo bearing Reg.No.KA-
28/B-1613. The said Tempo was being used for loading
and unloading goods at distant places. On 15.10.2012,
the appellant was proceeding in the said vehicle, as per
the instructions of respondent No.1. As the driver of the
said vehicle drove the vehicle at a high speed and in a
rash and negligent manner, he lost control over the
vehicle and thus, the vehicle turned turtle and the
appellant sustained injuries.
4. The version of the appellant is also that as
coolie, he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as salary,
besides Rs.75 per day as bhata. The Tribunal for the
purpose of calculating compensation took the notional
income as Rs.4,000/- per month. As rightly contended by
Sri.Sanjeevkumar C Patil, a notification has been issued by
the Government of India dated 31.05.2010, by which the
nominal wages is fixed as Rs.8,000/- per month. The
Tribunal for the reasons best known, took the notional
income as Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, this Court is
of the view that the calculation towards loss of earnings is
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2751
required to be done, taking notional income as Rs.8,000/-
per month, deducting 40% out of the said income, keeping
all other parameters intact i.e. multiplier as 199.40 and
disability as 5%. Loss of future earnings comes to
Rs.47,856/-(Rs.4,800 x 199.40 x 5%). Together with the
said amount, the appellant is entitled for Rs.40,360/-
towards medical expenses incurred. Thus the total
compensation, which the appellant is entitled to is
Rs.88,216/-.
5. In the light of the forgoing discussions, the
appeal is disposed off with the following orders:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The compensation granted by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-VII,
Vijayapura through orders in
E.C.A.No.409/2014 is enhanced from
Rs.64,360/- to Rs.88,216/-.
c) The enhanced sum carries interest at
the rate of 12% per annum from the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2751
date of petition, till the date of
deposit.
d) Second respondent is directed to
deposit the enhanced amount within
a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this order.
e) On such deposit the appellant is
permitted to withdraw the entire
amount.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NJ
