Karnataka High Court
Ningappa S/O Neelappa Gundannavar vs Rakesh S/O Narayan Badiger on 5 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6191
MFA No. 100433 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100433 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
NINGAPPA S/O. NEELAPPA GUNDANNAVAR,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS/AGRICULTURE,
(NOW NIL), R/O. KUBIHAL-580028,
TQ: KUNDAGOL, DIST: DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAKESH S/O. NARAYAN BADIGER,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. HULGUR-581126,
TQ: SHIGGOAN, DIST: HAVERI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
KRISHNA AGENCY BUILDING,
Digitally signed by P.B.ROAD, HAVERI-581110.
JAGADISH T R
Location: HIGH ...RESPONDENTS
COURT OF (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADV. FOR R2;
KARNATAKA NOTICE TO R1 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.11.2018 PASSED
IN MVC NO.652/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
HAVERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6191
MFA No. 100433 of 2019
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for
final disposal.
2. This appeal is filed by the injured/claimant seeking
enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the
judgment and award dated 13.11.2018 passed in
MVC.No.652/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge, MACT, Haveri, (for
short, 'Tribunal').
3. Heard Sri.Harish S.Maigur, learned counsel for the
appellant-injured and Sri.Rajashekar S.Arani, learned counsel
for the respondent No.2-insurance company.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
award of compensation under the heads of loss of amenities,
loss of income during laid-up period and incidental charges are
required to be re-assessed appropriately by allowing the
appeal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-
insurance company supports the impugned judgment and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6191
award passed by the Tribunal and submits that PW-2 is not the
treated doctor, hence assessment of disability by the Tribunal
at 25% is just & proper, which is in consonance with the
injuries suffered by the appellant. The award of compensation
by the Tribunal under the head of pain & suffering and other
heads is on the higher side and hence, the total compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. Hence, seeks to
dismiss the appeal.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
7. It is not in dispute that on 19.10.2016 the appellant
met with a road accident and sustained fractures viz., fracture
left mid clavicle, subcapital fracture of right proximal femur,
fracture distal end of radius and fracture ulnar styloid process.
In order to prove the claim, the appellant entered the witness
box and also examined the Dr.Umanath R.Ullal as PW-2. The
said doctor assessed the disability of the appellant-injured at
85%, taking note of the injuries suffered by the appellant and
also issued disability certificate at Ex.P-13. This Court, on re-
appreciation of oral testimony of PW-2 and disability certificate
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6191
at Ex.P-13, wound certificate at Ex.P-5 and other medical
evidence available on record, is of the considered view that it
would be just and proper to assess the disability at 30% for the
purpose of determination of compensation. Admittedly, the
appellant has not placed on record any evidence with regard to
the income. Hence, this Court re-assesses the income of the
appellant at Rs.8,750/- p.m. placing reliance on the notional
income chart prepared by the KSLSA. The appellant was aged
about 30 years as on the date of accident, the appropriate
multiplier would be 17, which has been rightly considered by
the Tribunal. Hence, the appellant is entitled to compensation
under the head of loss of future income due to disability as
under:
Rs.8,750 X 12 X 17 X 30% = Rs.5,35,500/-.
8. Taking note of the fact that the appellant has
sustained four major fractures and also keeping in mind the
fact that he was in-patient for a period of 37 days, this Court is
of the considered view that the appellant would be entitled to
additional compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of
amenities & discomfort in life. The appellant would be entitled
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6191
to Rs.26,250/- (Rs.8750 X 3) towards the loss of income
during laid-up period. The compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under the heads of pain & suffering and medical
expenses & other incidental charges remain unaltered. Thus,
the appellant would be entitled to modified compensation as
under:
HEADS AMOUNT
(in Rs.)
Pain & suffering 90,000
Loss of amenities & discomfort in life 40,000
Medical expenses & other incidental charges 24,000
Loss of income during laid-up period 26,250
(Rs.8750 X 3)
Loss of future income due to disability 5,35,500
Total 7,15,750
Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.7,15,750/- as against Rs.4,48,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
9. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
a) Appeal stands allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal is modified to an extent that the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6191
appellant-claimant would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.7,15,750/- as against
Rs.4,48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
c) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of payment.
d) The Insurance Company shall deposit the
enhanced compensation amount with accrued
interest before the Tribunal within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this judgment.
e) The apportionment, deposit and disbursement
shall be made as per award of the Tribunal.
f) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BSR
Ct-an
